Ann Kirkpatrick wants a rematch with Hermey, er, Paul Gosar


Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

HermieRegular readers know that I am not enamored with Blue Dog Conservative Democrats – why would any voter choose a knock-off (Republican-Lite) when they can choose the genuine article? Give them a real choice.

It's not a trick question, but Blue Dog Conservative Democrats can't seem to understand the question. Wha?

So I only half-heartedly report that former Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick wants a rematch with Hermey, er, Paul Gosar, the dentist who defeated her in 2010 (h/t Hermey the misfit elf who wanted to be a dentist). AZ/DC Blog – Kirkpatrick: I'm running for Congress again, and Arizona Capitol Times » Ann Kirkpatrick announces plans to run again:

Former Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick has confirmed she is running for the U.S. House of Representatives. Kirkpatrick served one term in the House before losing last fall to Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar.

The Flagstaff Democrat tells The Associated Press she is running because the district needs a moderate representative in Congress.

Yeah, see the introduction to this post above. But Rep. Paul Gosar is even more out-of-touch:

Gosar’s campaign released a statement Wednesday saying voters have already rejected Ann Kirkpatrick’s liberal voting record and they will once again in 2012.

A "liberal"? Seriously? I know that Tea-Publicans are to the right of Attila the Hun, but that does not make a Blue Dog Conservative Democrat a "liberal." That makes you, Mr. Gosar, a radical extremist on the political spectrum.

Mr. Gosar, as he has been taught by the right-wing media, is using "liberal" as a pejorative slur.

My personal favorite for this race, and I have not had any conversations with him about it, this is only my opinion, is former state representative Chris Deschene, who ran a good race for Secretary of State in a tough year in 2010. It is long past time that Arizona, for the first time, send a Native American to Congress. This district represents the Nation. Think about it, Marine. Oorah Semper Fi! Let us know what you decide.


  1. I use Blue Dog because that is the name conservative Democrats use to describe their “coalition.” (check it out: after November’s wipeout the site is “under construction.”) They were previously “Boll Weevil” Democrats, and Dixiecrats before that (mostly from the South).

    Giffords may be a member of the Blue Dogs, but she only opposed leadership on “safety votes,” votes where passage was assured. She voted with leadership almost 90% of the time on leadership votes. Kirkpatrick and Mitchell were in the mid-range. And they liked to send out press releases saying how they were “standing up to” their leadership. Bad form.

    What the GOP calls “liberal” Democrats are actually moderates. There are few true liberals left in Congress (Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin is one). I do not know of any “radical lefties” in the Democratic Party in Congress. No, not even Dennis Kucinich. The media has allowed the far-right to define the political spectrum for 40 years. It is time we redefine it correctly.

  2. How about identifying various subspecies of Democrats as Conservative vs Moderate? There are hardly any radical lefties left. “Blue Dog” is ok I guess but not really descriptive.

    RE electing conservative Dems: Kirkpatrick and for that matter Giffords may not be as liberal as you or I would like but they do pretty accurately reflect the composition of their districts and therefore are electable. I’d also venture that any Dem is better than any Repub so don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Another point to remember is that we don’t know what the district boundaries will be.