Thursday, November 09, 2006

First Change

Since we are no longer only covering the District 8 race exclusively, I am going to add a few more links to other blogs. There are a few that certainly deserved linking but didn't make it due to not spending a sufficient amount of time on this particular race, or from general laziness on my part. So, here we go . . .

Espresso Pundit
Hot AZ it Gets
The Arizona Conservative

Come on down!!!!

You are the next link contestant on Arizona Eighth.

Please try to contain your excitement.

Oh, and Arizona Conservative, you are on double secret probation until you make your site more Firefox friendly.


sirocco said...

I just looked at AZ Conservative in Firefox, and it looked like the site presented ok for me.

Taking a meme I saw from that site, you see a lot of conservative pundits trying to claim the Dems one by moving toward Conservative issues.

To which point I ask: please name one Democrat victor who was more conservative than the Republican he beat. (Hint: There aren't any.)

The majority of the Dem gains were made by Dem's espousing clearly liberal values in the NE. Even the AZ winners, while more moderate, are fairly liberal on social issues. I woulc argue only a couple (Shuler in NC, one the IN winners, name escapes me) would qualift as "conservative" Democrats.

Meaning the election wasn't "a defeat for Republicans, but a victory for conservatism", it was a defeat for both. The country had shifted too-far to the right, and the election shifted it back toward the center.

Framer said...


The most obvious answer is Joe Leiberman. My challenge is for you to show me a Democrat that ran on a liberal platform that won in a moderate or conservative environment. Did you see Gabby run any commercials espousing her view of a single-payer health care system? How about global warming? Her "solar powered" commercials focused on the "thieving oil industry."

Did you see any commercials backing the ACLU, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, paying your "fair share" of taxes, defending the ability of a young woman to have an abortion without parental consent? I must have missed those ads.

I believe that Democrats were elected to be given a chance with the War in Iraq. How they handle this will determine if they stay or go. Should they view this as a chance to start passing sweeping Liberal reforms, you will see George Bush's popularity move considerably upward, and an entirely different election result in two years.

The best summation I saw was in the comment section of annother blog:

"The Republicans lost and the Democrats won for the same reason -- they distanced themselves from their base. "

And thanks for sticking aroung Sirocco. I will hopefully have some pretty exciting news to announce soon concerning the blog. We are also going to get into Republican and Democratic Presidential contenders and I would love to have some center-left input on that.

phx kid said...

If you look at Montana Conrad Burns lost by about 3,000 to Jon Tester. Tester certainly does not qualify as a strong liberal. I understood that Burns was tainted by Abramoff. The corruption issue had more to do in that race than a repudiation of the conservative agenda.

If you look at the House seat in Montana you will notice that pro-life Denny Rehberg beat the Democrat 59% to 39% so it looks like the state must still be socially conservative. Certainly a much larger margin of victory than in the Senate race.

cc burro said...

Both of you are probably right. I doubt that there were any Democrats who beat Republicans were more conservative than the Republicans. However, from what I heard, there were quite a few moderate [mix of liberal/moderate/conservative views on various issues] Democrats who beat Republicans.

Most of what I've heard that Pelosi would like to see enacted initially is supported by the mainstream of American [and was NOT supported by the conservative Republican house leadership]--

--increase the federal minimum wage
--allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research,
--institute real ethics reform,
--re-institute full PAYGO [which the Republicans didn't do so they could increase the federal deficit to enact their tax cuts]
--allow Medicare to directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies [as the Veterans Admin. has been doing for years] in order to get better prices
--enact all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations

The DEM leadership realizes that their majority is slim and that they are on "probation". They will have to be careful to not over-reach. Also, truly need to learn a lesson from being the minority party the past 10+ years and treat the Republicans fairly. [For example, not deliver large bills to be voted on the following day to the Republicans at 3AM, exclude them from bill conferences.] From what I heard on NPR, one reason the Republicans treated the Democrats badly during the past 10 years was that the Democrats had done the same to the Republicans during the preceding 40 years when the Democrats were in power. This has got to stop.

sirocco said...


Your counter-example doesn't fit, as Lieberman's _Republican_ opponent was Schlessinger. Lieberman was clearly more liberal than Schlessinger.

Further, that wasn't a Dem picking up a seat either way. It was a question of which Dem was going to win.

Phx Kid,

Here's a list of Tester's "conservative" platform (taken from Atrios):

* Supporting renewable and alternative energy sources (biofuels, bitches!)
* Raising automobile mileage
* Pro-choice
* Protecting public lands
* Country of origin labels for food imports
* Affordable health care
* Enforcing immigration laws for immigrants and employers
* gun rights
* A plan to end the war in Iraq
* Increasing the minimum wage
* Repealing the Patriot Act
* Changing Medicare D to allow price negotiation with drug companies
* No to social security privatization
* Pro stem cell research
* Middle class tax relief

Gun rights is a traditional conservative issue. So is Middle-class tax relief (although the case could be made liberals support varieties of this as well). Everything else on that list tends to be linked to "liberals".

I agree Tester is a moderate liberal, but he is still a liberal, and unquestionably more liberal than Burns, whom he defeated.

Admittedly, Burns was hurt by the Abramoff linkage, and further hurt by his own behavior vis-a-vis an incident with some fire-fighters a couple months ago, from which he never fully recovered. Still, with a Dem. Governor and a Dem. Senator, Montana is starting to trend blue.

phx kid said...

In that list of Tester’s platform I agree with half of it and I am a far-right conservative. Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research is a non-issue that the Democrats used as a classic wedge. Good job this year, won’t work forever.

Running on the platform against a weakened opponent Tester only had a 5,000-vote margin or victory. Rehberg has an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 93 and won 59% to 39% against the Democrat among the same voters as Tester. Looks like Montana is still plenty conservative.

Randall Holdridge said...

If I recall the numbers correctly, Governor Napolitano first won election with a 3,000 vote margin over Matt Salmon, a moderately conservative Republican; a 3,000 vote margin in Montana is much greater than a 3,000 vote difference in Arizona. I don't know whether conservatives seriously regard Napolitano as liberal or moderate or conservative or just what, but in winning re-election as a Democrat in a mostly red state, against a quintessentially conservative opponent, she edged her margin up more than a tad.

The test in Montana for Tester is 6 years away.

sirocco said...

Phx Kid,

Oh, I don't disagree Montana remains conservative. Just not as deeply conservative as it has been in the past.

As for Tester, yes he was weakened. Still, he was a 3-term incumbent with everything that entails in terms of money, name-recognition, infrastructure, etc.

Also, 5,000 votes is a wider margin there than, say, California. I think that's about 2% or so? Not a wide gap, bit not razor-thin either.

Kralmajales said...

The first real thing that the new Dem. house should do is show America how pragmatic it is and how it can get something done that the Republicans could not.

Namely...pass the Senate version of the immigration bill into law. It would do two things. Make strides on a problem that was blown by the Republican party and it would further couple the Demo party with the Chamber of Commerce who supports a guest worker program.

Strategically, it would be brilliant. It would anger the far right anti-immigrant extremist crowd. They would be up in arms, would run extremists in primaries in 2008, and would divide the Repub. party further on immigration.

It would both be pragmatic, a winning issue, a good compromise, and set up the Republicans for the fight of their lives...internally.

Legislation Forum said...

Nancy Barto a Phoenix Republican is the bill's sponsor. If it becomes law it will make several normal medical procedures used today by embryologists illegal. It seems that Barto is trying to hide an Anti-Stem Cell Research bill in what is being labled an anti-human cloning and creation of human-animal hybrids bill.

Plus now I can't make my clone with wings, eagle eyes and cheeta speed, darn it!

Do you think our representatives should be passing bills like this or maybe focusing on something like balancing our budget?

Join the conversation at