Griego earns title of CD1 Democratic frontrunner


  1. IcarusPhoenix says:

    Thank you again for proving my point, Dr. J; Anything you have specifically chosen not to believe, regardless of any evidence for or against, is automatically “debunked” or a “left wing talking point”, and you frequently provide as evidence in your favor links to articles that, had you actually read them with a dispassionate mind, you would have discovered were rife with evidence that what you have chosen to believe is, in fact, the opposite of what is actually real.  It is easier for you to dismiss the very concept of confirmation bias – the very trait you are demonstrating and a basic tenet of modern psychology – as a mere left wing talking point than it is to develop mature debating tactics and practice elementary research techniques.  Incidentally, I find it interesting that you demonstrated this by linking to an article addressing another topic over which you frequently claim authority but demonstrate little actual knowledge.

  2. Dr. J says:

    Straight from the Daily Kos by Rach Maddow:

    Just more left wing talking points on “confirmation bias”, I rest my case. 

  3. IcarusPhoenix says:

    Wow, Doc, you really do have the most incurable case of confirmation bias I have ever seen.  Simply because you can’t tell the difference between a metaphor and a direct statement nor the difference between something you’ve chosen to believe a word or phrase means and something that it actually mean does not mean that your pre-existing opinion is automatically correct.  Belief is not fact, insistence is not proof, and opinion is not evidence.

  4. Dr. J says:

    Oh, I see IP, so if I were to dismiss everything you say as a knee-jerk bunch of left wing soundbites from MoveOn, DailyKos, or Rach Maddow, then I would not be talking about you personally, but your words.  OK, got it, I understand your personal definition now.

  5. IcarusPhoenix says:

    Dr. J:
    This is the second time you have so delightfully proven yourself wrong on your usage of this exact phrase; as you demonstrated, I attacked your words, not you personally (though I’ve noticed that you are one of many here who has a strange habit of equating the two).  It is true that I did then not respond to your post itself, but in order to do so, your commentary would have needed to possess some sort of argument; it’s hard to disagree with facts or evidence – as you invited me to do – when you completely fail to present any.  Simply parroting substance-free right-wing sound-bites is not the same as “evidence” just because you happen to already believe them.
    Incidentally, after the GOP pre-primary, I am willing to amend my earlier statements about Janice Arnold-Jones; while I am still not (yet) optimistic that she can win a primary – being rather too sensible to be acceptable to the ever-increasing conspiracy-obsessed bulk of her party – the fact that she can garner 62% support among the party establishment shows that they, at least, are perhaps finally realizing that running fringe candidates that in no way represent the views of most New Mexicans is hardly a winning strategy, and should she manage to convince the voters of her party of the same, there is hope that there will actually be a first district candidate worth voting for come November.

  6. Dr. J says:

    IP says:  “I’m going to ignore Dr. J’s knee-jerk soundbites that appear to be definition-free strings of words that appear to be culled from the average story on World Net Daily,”   So is this attacking the messenger (knee-jerk soundbites, etc.) or the content of the message?  Did IP take on the content of my comments for facts, evidence, or even agreement with his own ideas (which apparently they are), or did he or she take me on personally?  Ad hom= “attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.”  So what is your definition IP?

  7. IcarusPhoenix says:

    Er, Dr. J, you might want to learn what an ad hominem attack is before you try to use it as a catch-all phrase to dismiss criticisms of your fact-free sound-bites; furthermore, you might actually want to read what I wrote rather than what you had already decided I wrote; specifically, that Janice Arnold-Jones’ virtues are exactly the reason that while she could clean house in a general (against both Senator Griego and Marty Chávez), it’s a moot point since she’s probably far too sensible to stand a chance of winning the primary.

  8. Dr. J says:

    I will ignore the aside attack, ad hom, on me and just say it is obvious IP and I are in full agreement on Griego and his supporters.  You have made my point IP, because I would not count that lady out, she has much to recommend her and against Griego she is a shoe-in.

  9. Qui Tam says:

    I thought it was really sad that some of Balderas’s supporters choose to make it a racist thing. Then resorted to the you are not from here thing. It really divides the Democratic Party and has no place in civilized society.

    Balderas might reconsider the company he keeps before he is permanently damaged by them.

    Good luck to ALL!

  10. IcarusPhoenix says:

    I’m going to ignore Dr. J’s knee-jerk soundbites that appear to be definition-free strings of words that appear to be culled from the average story on World Net Daily, and merely focus on the rather amusing e-mail blast the Griego campaign sent out the night of the convention:
    “We’ve overcome the odds, and are beating back the establishment candidate in the race thanks to your support.”
    Senator Griego – or more accurately, whichever member of his campaign staff wrote this particular bit of fluff – seems to be as in need of a dictionary as the good doc… or, for that matter, as in need of one as Griego perennially is.  This is the party convention, Senator; if you win that, you are – by definition – the “establishment candidate”.  There is a very short list of people in the Party I will never work for (again), and Senator Griego is one of them; he is undisciplined, he frequently makes statements that send general election voters scurrying firmly into the other camp, and – hyperbole aside – while he is the perfect person to hold the fourteenth district, he really is too liberal for the first congressional district.  More importantly, he more often than not tends to hire people just as blinded by their idealism as he is.
    Unfortunately (since Commissioner Lujan Grisham doesn’t stand a chance), the alternative is Marty Chávez… who, incidentally, is one of the other two people on that list of folks I refuse to work for.  Our only saving grace is the the two GOP candidates most likely put up a serious challenge either dropped out already or never ponied up in the first place, and their only remaining good candidate is someone who would look great in a general election in this district, but that’s because she’s far too moderate for the tin-foil hat brigade that have taken over her party.
    And no, Qui Tam, because most of the rest of us don’t believe in subverting both the democratic and judicial processes just because we might disagree with someone.

  11. Dr. J says:

    Griego wins with “superior organization”, enthusiastic supporters too?  Of course, the far left wing liberals like him have that in abundance, but they lack superior ideas that attract the majority of voters since theirs are so far left, anti-business, and socialistic, and they lack enthusiastic supporters that are not far left wing liberals.  The perfect candidate would be Griego for anyone right of Mao, and that includes most any Repub.  When all the far left endorsements get shown to rational voters, and they hear what Griego would do in Congress (I’m sure he thinks Pelosi is too right wing for him) they will know Griego is not for most people, just ones who think like he does in that liberal fantasyland.

  12. qofdisks says:

    I just thought Heath was censoring my comment because it was particularly more stupid than usual.  I did clear up some understandings at DFNM web-site about this exclusive Democratic party pre-selection thing.  
    Here it is. 

  13. Heath Haussamen says:

    Sorry, Dr. J, just discovered a bug that had me not being notified of new comments. I’m getting notification again… comment away!

  14. Dr. J says:

    I would comment on this, but apparently no comments are being published anymore.

  15. qofdisks says:

    I fail to see the point of all this except for the big party the night before.  If this winnowing does not well, winnow, then it is an exercise in self importance.  It is meaningless to me as a regular voter trying the understand and weigh the candidates on their integrity, record and beliefs.   
    Having said that, I will be hoping and working for Evelyn Madrid Erhart. 

  16. Michael H Schneider says:

    ” [Griego]’s a lefty’s lefty”

    Nonsense. Eric Griego is a true conservative: he believes that by cooperating and working together as a nation we can improve the lives of all Americans.

    That’s an idea that goes back at least as far as a document that begins “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty … .”

    It’s an idea that goes back at least 100 years before that, to Thomas Hobbes, who pointed out that without cooperation, without the recognition of social interdependence – without civilization, that is – life in a state of nature is nasty, brustish, poor, solitary, and short.

    Eric Griego is a conservative because he believes these ideas, these ideas that have kept western civilization going for the last 400 years. It’s the people who believe that the war of all against all is good, who believe in unrestrained competition and winner take all economics, they are the radicals who threaten to destroy this nation.

  17. Qui Tam says:

    Were any arrests made at the convention?