Gabby Giffords came to Drinking Liberally and we all had some good fun. There should be video of the event available here soon. One of the questions that came up was the issue of whether Gabby was open to impeachment of the President and Vice President. During the campaign, she was rather dismissive of the idea of an impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney, and it seems she still holds that position.
Her response (and here I would urge readers to reserve final judgment until they can see the video) seemed to be considerably more defensive than in the past. She dismissed the idea as impractical, as in the past, but she also felt the need to note that while impeachment may be warranted, that she can’t do anything about it because the leadership has ruled it out. There was a distinct note of "don’t blame me" about her response, which I haven’t heard from her before.
I think the idea that our Representative is powerless because of Speaker Pelosi’s position is absurd. If Gabby thinks that impeachment may be warranted, and knows that her constituents strongly support it, and that half the American electorate already supports the idea (46% favor Bush’s impeachment, 56% Cheney’s – and keep in mind that ALL voters, not just Democrats) before impeachment inquiries have even begun (and keep in mind this polling happened even before Bush’s obstructionist commutation of Libby’s sentence), then I think she is obligated to speak openly about the issue, co-sponsor the bill, and to urge our Democratic leadership to move off the dime. Instead, she just urges us not to look to her for leadership on this issue. Well, Gabby, I am looking to you for leadership on this issue. You are the only person in CD 8 who gets a vote on this issue, and you owe us either leadership, or a cogent explanation of why you won’t support impeachment, not finger-pointing at the Speaker or implausible pragmatic excuses.
My first question to Gabby was why she thought that Congress seemed to be held in nearly as low esteem by the public as the President. She opined, as I thought she would, that it was because so much of our legislative agenda had gotten ‘stuck in the sculpture gallery’ (stalled between House and Senate because we can’t muster enough votes for cloture, i.e. are getting filibustered). Yet even as she offered this excuse, she held to the position that impeachment would detract from more pressing legislative business. What business? We are getting so little done between the veto and the filibustering of a re-empowered minority (we rightly returned both chambers to regular orders when we took over Congress, which greatly enhanced the power of the minority), that much of our agenda is impossible anyhow. We are wretched to the point that Bush feels safe to taunt and berate us for being unable to get bills passed, despite the fact that it his and his party’s doing. Good enough reason to impeach the bastard…
What the minority in Congress and the President cannot stop, however, is an impeachment inquiry and passing of articles of impeachment. Sure, we may not have the votes in the Senate to impeach now, but so what? We didn’t have the votes in the Senate to impeach Nixon until the hearings were well under way and Nixon began serious stonewalling, either. I sincerely think that airing the Administration’s crimes publicly in a well-focused impeachment inquiry would swing enough public opinion (which already favors impeachment) to push over a significant number of Republican Senators who are already fed up with this Administration. And the popularity of Congress would soar as people see them fulfilling their constitutional role and taking a principled stand, rather than neglecting their duty out of political cowardice and expediency, and fiddling as D.C. burns.
The pleading that impeachment wouldn’t be practical because of our weighty legislative agenda is either implausible, or simply contemptible. We don’t currently have the ability to move any controversial laws; our main job into 2009 is to stop any more damage being done (and even that is a dubious proposition on some subjects – Save Net Neutrality!). The excuse that it would take too many resources is fallacious as an impeachment inquiry only takes the resources of one committee in House. The good work that other committees are doing, such as the Science and Technology Committee, the production of which Gabby is rightly proud, would be unaffected. In any case, I am unwilling to trade any amount of good bi-partisan policymaking for the destruction or denigration of our Constitutional order. Such a trade-off is deeply contemptible. Besides, there are already dozens of oversight inquiries going on, any number of which might produce impeachable or indictable offenses. Some say that the compromise reached in the Democratic leadership was to authorize such inquiries freely, so long as they weren’t called ‘impeachment inquiries’. Bush is obviously feeling the heat of this unaccustomed oversight from Congress, and he’s already whining about that to his remaining partisans already, as is his wont; who cares if he continues to whinge and attack us as overly partisan for starting an impeachment inquiry? It may be time to just call a spade a spade, and admit that this Executive warrants removal with the only Constitutional tool at our disposal.
There really isn’t any defensible excuse not to hold impeachment inquiries. Well, there is one: it would take some political balls to face down a cornered Administration fighting for its life, and we don’t want an impeachment fight to disturb the strong prospect of a Democratic Presidential victory and/or holding on to a Congressional majority in 2008. The Democratic leadership and aparatchikis want to lay low and wait for the GOP to implode, then slide in to pick up the pieces as the only viable alternative. Talk about inspiring leadership! Do we really so lack confidence in our ability to lead that we can only hope for the American people’s complete disillusionment with the GOP? The third-way Democrats running our Congressional Caucus won’t say as much, but their actions speak much louder than words ever could. The failure of the Democratic Party to stand up to a deeply unpopular, lame-duck, admitted criminal and remove him from the Presidency, in the hope that the voters will do the job for them, will go down in history as one of the most striking acts of political cowardice, short-sightedness, and opportunism in American political history.
On the subject of impeachment, many Democrats are like victims of sexual assault. Our Constitution was raped by the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment, and now many Democrats have been put off having normal, legitimate impeachments by the experience. Impeachment is not evil. But bad people can do impeachment against the will of the majority, and while ignoring the real, loving purpose behind impeachment, which is to preserve the Republic and the Constitution from a rogue Executive; only then is impeachment bad and dirty. Don’t be victimized twice by the Republicans’ raping of our Constitution in the Clinton impeachment: once by their illegitiate use of impeachment, and a second time by letting Bush get away with his crimes for fear of the ‘i’-word.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
By the way, in your last post to AZw88, you imply that the only way to educate the public on the crimes of this administration is to impeach him. What about the many many investigations going on now. AND…I am not sure you will get any more information from this administration in an impeachment than you will in investigations where they stonewall and stonewall.
It will take a lawsuit to get that information. A Supreme Court case invoking U.S. v. Nixon…and by that time, we will be in the midst of the final campaign to replace Bush and hopefully build a new America.
Its not a matter of tolerating anything Michael. The most common and reasonable way to transition a government is the ballot box. Impeachment takes supermajorities that cannot be mustered. And to hang this on Giffords? What a joke! Not a single Republican would support this (not that anyone here cares) and many Democrats will not (which you will no doubt hang for being weak and disloyal).
When the evidence comes out that he has committed crimes, and he is out of office, then we have a criminal justice system, prosecutors, and court for that. And I a mean that, because I am as pissed as any here about FISA, the lies behind the war, the firings of the Prosecutors for political reasons, the K-Street crimes, and the no bid contracts and undoubtable corruption.
Gamera,
No one will go after both Bush and Cheney for impeachment…and if they do… they will lose…
And again, if you impeach and remove Bush, you get Cheney. If you get Cheney too, you get Pelosi. So many here seem to love her.
How’s a brazen public admission that he ordered his Administration to violate FISA thousands of times, any one of which is a felony criminal offense, and his vow to continue violating the law? Is that ‘major’ enough and ‘clear’ enough for you? The fact that only 47% support impeachment so far is because the public is generally ignorant of the scope and seriousness of BushCo’s crimes. The widespread ignorance is demonstrated by the fact that even you, azw88, whom I know to be well-informed, are ignorant of the facts. Our politicians should be educating the public; instead they’re ducking their responsibility to the Constitution and our posterity.
As for dividing the country… as Bush would say, “Bring it on!” By your logic we should have tolerated slavery and avoided the Civil War. If we have to bust some fascist heads to keep our republican traditions, then hand me that baseball bat, bucko.
“47% of the American People want Impeachment.”
To quote Mick and the boys, “You can’t always get what you want”
If it were in the 60’s and there were hard fast clear evidence of a major crime, then I’d say go for it. Anything short of that and it will come off as Sour grapes to many and just divide this country further….
“You won’t win an impeachment fight…period.”
Sigh….
47% of the American People want Impeachment. (18% were Republicans)
26% Support Bush.
12% Support the job Congress is doing.
I’d say there is some work Congress has to do.
When the people elected the Democrats to power in ’96, they sent a clear message to the representative elects: stop the abuse of power by George Bush. Unfortunately, the house leadership have become criminals by proxy by not stepping in to limiting his power.
Your argument against impeachement doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. One, if anyone in the Democratic party had half a brain, they would be going after Cheney as well. For the Valerie Plame leak and the ties to haliburton that gave them the contracts without going out to bid. Bush you can get for the mishandling of the war, the lying on the WMD’s and illegal wiretapping. Two for the price of one. It’s funny that you’d think there wouldn’t be the votes for cloture. How many defections on the Republican side have we seen already against Bush? The number is growing, why? Because their constituents have been banging down the doors to get them to get Bush to stop this mess. Noting that in the last poll over a month ago, had 18 percent of those polled who favored impeachement were, indeed, Republicans. Where would the wedge/divide be?
Believe me when I say, when the evidence comes out against Bush/Cheney for impeachement, much more would be joining the ranks of “Get them the Hell out of the White House.”
Kral. Republicans are just like us, they put on their pants one leg at a time, they eat, they breathe the same air..there is nothing to be frightened by them:)
And all excitement aside. If you impeach and remove Bush, you get Cheney as President. You impeach him, you get Pelosi.
Think about the consequences.
Gamera,
As much as I hate the Bush administration, I think impeachment would drive a wedge in this country that would not heal for quite some time. I thought it was stupid with regard to Clinton and there is really no comparison given this administration’s tactics, lies, and distortions. There aren’t enough votes for cloture in the Senate let alone an impeach and remove. You won’t be able to get the job done, period, with the number of Republicans in the House and Senate that would see this as going too far. I think a number of Democrats would not go there either.
You won’t win an impeachment fight…period. And then what? Be the party of impeachment, and lose election after election.
We live in a majoritarian democracy, we have courts to sue when majorities violate our rights. An impeachment takes a supermajority and right now, so does defunding Iraq. You can’t lay this on Giffords and Pelosi, who by the way, is among the most liberal members of Congress…save for Grijalva and Kucinich.
Kral this bill is not a “major major deal” as you portend it to be.
When you read Grijalva’s comments on the bill, he even eludes to it being weak and that congress can do more. It is just another medicore step shown by a majority of congress people who have no interest in upholding the rule of law in this country.
I would like to point to you the failing numbers put upon congress by the people in the United States. In fact, if you read further into the IPSOS poll, you’ll see that those who responded in the negative to congress have felt they have been sold a bill of goods by the democrats and have had the rug pulled out from under them. I lay the blame solely on Pelosi and her puppets.
I was listening to Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz yesterday on Air America (XM 167)(personally, I cannot wait until someone in Tucson decides to bring it down here) and even Rhodes and Schultz are falling off the democrats bandwagon (who’d ever thought that would ever happen?).
Schultz was broadcasting out of DC and he said that Pelosi and her group have no grasp of the reality of what is going on in this country. They are afraid of the Bush Administration (he said it and challenged anyone to refute him-no one in his congress panel did). Rhodes said the spigot from her checkbook to the demcratic party is closed and strongly encouraged all her listeners to do the same. I can tell you this, over the 20 or so callers she took within 2 hours, all said “no more donations until impeachment is on the table.”
It flummoxs me to see you so happy over the puppet, I am thinking (my thoughts alone) that you are so happy to see a Democrat in the office that Kolbe has had for over 20 years-I don’t think it would make a difference to you if it were Patty or Latas there as well.
My personal opinion is this..the puppet has admitted to following the marching orders from Pelosi, that in my book makes her nothing more than a follower than a leader. I was hoping for much more than that and I feel let down. I’m not hopeful that she can turn this around, she has hitched her horse to the Pelosi bandwagon and she will go the way Pelosi goes. Independent thought is not her strongpoint, I guess.
As of last month, my monthly donation to the AzDP has been stopped. It is a party that is doing it’s damnedest to silence those who are progressive (case in point-why aren’t the progressive democrats a reckonized group within the PCDP?).
If the democratic party doesn’t start talking the “I” word soon, there will be more defections from the party in way of voters (I think the NOP’s will begin to grow.) We were told there was going to be changes in DC, but as we have seen with our congressperson, change does indeed have to wait.
I am also a bit surprised that this blog and others have not reported that this bill has passed…and that Giffords and Mitchell moved to join Grijalva and Pastor on supporting a troop withdraw. It is a major development…whether it goes far enough as Liza notes…it is still a major major deal.
First, Kucinich was one of was one of only 10 (and two non-votes) that voted against the bill. Kucinich was one of them. Of those 10, a number like John Barrow are serve very conservative districts and barely won. So I guess I am saying that some voted against because it wasn’t enough (Kucinich) others because they couldn’t support a pullout.
Giffords, Mitchell, Grijalva, and Pastor all voted for this legislation. No, it is not a cut off of funds nor is it an impeachment. Liza is correct in saying that those two actions are among the only ones that would force an immediate withdraw.
Still, this is a major movement by Giffords, wouldn’t you say? And is this not what you wanted her to do?
It may not be enough, but it looks to me more votes are coming and at this point most all of the democrats (90% I would say) and very very few of the Republicans supported this vote for a troop withdraw.
Gamera, I apologize for giving you the either vote her or vote Bee. Obviously sophomoric of me. However, what I have been saying is that you have a good Congresswoman that serves a very very difficult district. There are things she cannot do in this district immediately, unlike Kucinich, when she is about to face a major challenge from the right (in Tim Bee). The Republicans truly believe they can take this district because she is too liberal for the district. I thought some of the language that you and some others here had used was overly divisive and not in the least bit supportive.
Again, we will all vote for whomever we want and support whomever. I think she has listened, shown courage, and is doing her best as a new young Congresswoman. Give her a chance before you pull out the knives…and keep your eyes on the 90% of Republicans and our corrupt administration who are the ones really standing in the way of change.
Constitutional scholars discuss why Pelosi and her followers are failing their Constitutional oath.
For Democrats to play this as a political issue just means they are as clueless as the Republicans as to what their duties are.
This is about the destruction of our system of government and Congress must act.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_impeachment1-1.html
Gamera, the Gabby loyalists are taking the same “you’re either with us or against us” approach that another famous political figure uses.
It is good that Giffords voted yes for the troop withdrawal. However, stronger steps need to be taken. This bill does not have much in the way of teeth to force the president’s hand. It says that troop withdrawal must begin within 120 days, but that by April 2008 the administration must justify a minimum number of troops in Iraq. You and I both know that Bush will do anything to make that number as high as possible. I’m not a huge fan of Kuchinich, but he is right when he says there are two ways to end this: cut off the money or impeach. Who in Congress will have the strength to take the steps this country sorely needs right now?
Kral where did I exactly say I would vote for Bee?
Would you care to point that out to the rest of this board..or are you talking out of your ass again?
I personally would look to see who voted against that sham of a bill on the Democratic side.
Does the name Kucinich mean anything to you?
Kral, thought you might be interested in what Dennis Kucinich said about HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, which he voted against:
“We’ve lost over 3,600 of our brave service men and women. An estimated one million innocent Iraqis have perished in the war. We’re now telling Iraqis, whose country the U.S. destroyed, whose reconstruction funds the U.S. mishandled, whose social networks have been shredded: Stand on your own feet! We try to steal their oil under the cover of occupation,” Kucinich said in a debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today.
“This bill will not end the war. This bill will not end the occupation. It doesn’t take a vote to end this war. We must inform the Administration that the $97 billion appropriated last month is the end of the financing for the war.
“Use the money that’s in the pipeline through October 1 to bring the troops home. Compel the President to put together an international peacekeeping and security force which would move in as our troops leave.
“We could have our troops home by October 1. The question is whether we are ready to take a stand to do that, or whether we are going to vote on resolutions that give the American people the appearance that we want to end the war, without actually addressing the central issue that will end the war. Stop the funding.”
Dennis Kucinich understands the OIL FACTOR as well as anyone. The Democrats still support the privatization of Iraqi oil as a “benchmark” although the Iraqi Parliament has not yet approved the oil law that the Bush Administration is pressuring them to pass. If the law does pass, the violence in Iraq will escalate yet again.
Right now I’m not sure that I see HR 2956 as much of anything other than Democrats trying to show they are confronting Bush when they really aren’t. There are two choices: cut off funding or impeach. What else is there?
Oops…the link:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/624/?topnews
Here is her vote (and Mitchell’s) on the most recent vote to get us out of Iraq. She voted for it…as did Mitchell.
It ain’t perfect, it ain’t now, but it is vote for the right direction to remove our troops.
It won’t be fast enough for some of you, you will continue to call her mediocre or a puppet. Well, this was a party line vote, she voted the right way, AND this is not a friendly district whatsoever.
I think we owe her some support, not don’t you? For listening, and for voting the right way at a time when she is about to attract among the most difficult of conservative Republican candidates in Tim Bee.
This legislation, of course, will be vetoed. But so what, look at the names who supported it on the Democrat side and then look at the only 4 Republicans who voted for it.
They are your enemy and are who you should be bashing…and trying to get out of office, NOT Gabby Giffords.
Respectfully, Gamera, vote Bee if you want next time. I will cancel yours out.
sonofdy, cognitive dissonance is so comforting isn’t it?
Impeachment will not happen because if it did, it would expose the democratic lies.
Whew! Finally someone with a good idea – by all means, we should let Pelosi know what we think and not only about impeachment but about a whole host of problems we want the Congress to solve!
We also have to realize that we are not all of the constituents in the voting universe – and that right though we may be, there are others with different ideas who are also entitled to representation.
She’s a politician, gamera, in a very vulnerable seat. Now before you peg me wrong, I was at the Gabby DL meeting and was one of the vocal ones, esp. concerning Iraq and the need to hold this administration accountable for the eroding of our democracy taking place right before our very eyes. And no I wasn’t pleased with her answers. Neither am I pleased that Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table. Michael’s comment was dead-on, I feel like I’ve been assaulted and nobody will do anything about it. Perhaps the surest way to see some action is to write/call Pelosi herself, and tell her to put impeachment of Cheney back ON the freakin’ table… immediately.
Francine if it isn’t medocrity, then waht is it?
Gamera, when logic fails, get personal. To accuse people with whom you don’t agree of supporting mediocrity is just a cheap shot!
Gabby may not be my dream candidate but I would like to remind you (1) she won the primary very handily; (2) as someone who ran in the primary, I made it perfectly clear that I would respect the electorate and support the winner of the primary; and (3) she won the general election, hands down! Now, she is our elected representative – and we are her constituents – we are obligated to tell her what she has to do to represent us. I would also suggest that we are not the only ones she represents and we haven’t a clue what others are telling her to do to represent them.
You don’t like her – that’s your business. You don’t want to vote for her when she comes up for re-election – that’s your business. Myself, I want to know what my options are. For sure, I will not vote for a Republican. I firmly believe that the Democratic party is the best hope of our America and I will work and fight for a Democratic party that is the best it can be. All I have argued for is an understanding of the reality of being one freshman congressperson and the limitations that attach to that.
There is one, inescapable conclusion I have drawn by the arguements posed in favor of Pelosi’s Puppet (I will no longer call her Gabby):
1. Mediocrity is okay.
2. Voting the way your leadership wants and not your constituents want-acceptable.
3. Not standing up for your values and the values of your constituents-allright as well.
If people like wish for medocrity, Kral, Francine, azw88 and x4mr well that’s all fine and dandy. You have your dream girl doing your bidding.
But I’m tired of America sleeping in the wet spot of George Bush and the Republican’s wet dreams regarding the Middle East.
I think another poster said that the majority of money that Pelosi’s Puppet voted in lock-step with the Republican’s on goes to the contractors. That’s true. Why won’t you argue for the money going to the troops? Why aren’t you on her front door demanding that she go to her fearless leader and tell her to start supporting our troops instead of Kellogg, Brown and Root? Because medocity is your standard, that’s why.
Now she will not push for impeachment. Why? Because fearless leader Pelosi made the screw-up of all screw-up’s on 60 Minutes by proclaiming: “Impeachment is off the table.” Now we see Bush and Cheney given a pass and through that-sending another carrier (Enterprise) to the coast off Iran.
Let me ask you this you Pelosi Puppet followers: Are you ready for another war? Are you ready to cash in on the backs of our dead soldiers?
There is a reason why Congress’ ratings are in the toilet-because we sent them there to do a job. A job in which they have proved themselves not up to the task of accomplishing.
Perhaps we should be asking ourselves: can we, and America, afford another 2 years of Pelosi’s Puppet? The answer is: a huge NO!
“to vilify Gabby because she didn’t vote on an issue the way you wanted her to, but instead voted pretty much the way she said she would during the election is kind of hypocritical”
During the election, Gabby said that she would bring the troops home by the end of 2007. That is not how she is voting now.
“She has said all along (going back to the primary) that a pull-out should be a well-planned, measured withdrawal.”
Then why couldn’t she support the McGovern amendment, which would have done exactly that?
“People are mad here because she didn’t move fast enough”
Exactly. No mother whose child has come home in a body bag thinks that she is moving fast enough.
“she represents a conservative district by all points”
No, only by a few percentage points. And with as fast as our population is growing, that is shifting all the time. Seventy percent of the U.S. population wants to end the occupation. Some of those folks have to be Republicans. But Gabby sides with the 30% who still support the occupation, who still support Bush, who still believe that Saddam Hussein was the architect of 9/11. And she votes to continue to send money to the contractors who provided our sons and daughters with contaminated water, and who continue to poison the children of Iraq.
I read the conservative blogs and joust a bit with them for fun and to test arguments. What I see over there is a split party that many of us make a lot of noise about. What I see here is the exact same thing. A group of disaffected, angry people, few of which voted for or supported Giffords much at all. Someone mentioned holding their noses and the many those here clearly did and many of which voted Weiss or Latas in the primary. That is fine. No biggie.
What I remember from that primary is person after person in the progressive ranks bashing away in order to get a Latas or a Weiss in there. Not trumpeting their strengths but slamming Giffords. It continues and I would wager from many of the same crowd.
I see major movement in her on Iraq. No question. People are mad here because she didn’t move fast enough, but I keep sensing a larger issue that you, like the right wingers on Sonoran Alliance, want some sort of a purist litmus test.
Give her some breathing room folks. She has served about a 1/4 of her term, she represents a conservative district by all points. Remember, Grijalva is one of the most liberal members of our congress and he serves one of the most liberal districts in all of Congress. He has the freedom to do what he pleases. As a representative, Giffords does not when there is such a slim majority.
Keep sliming her…and beg for a progressive alternative all you like…you will end up losers for it…just like those on the far right who are trying to control their party…and are making it the smallest of tents.
Giffords never said anything about continuing the war ad infinitum. She has said all along (going back to the primary) that a pull-out should be a well-planned, measured withdrawal.
You chastise a politician for voting as she said she would??
As for Raul Grijalva he does stand up for the rights of his people, but he thinks his people live on the OTHER side of the Border!
Giffords thinks she is still at El Campo Tire dealing with Mike Hein for a deal for Rio Nuevo money to clean up her enviornmental mess at the El Campo site at 22nd and the freeway.
She can not say she is an enviornmentalist if she deals in contaminated sites and wants we the taxpayers to clean up her messes!
Why do people elected to congress worry about getting re-elected when they ran to get elected it was for the current election cycle and its problems not the next!!!
What is a congressional seat worth if nothing good comes out of holding one. If you don’t move to stop a war thats costing you $12 billion a month worth of borrowed money while you are fighting for scraps on money for alternative energy then you are either naive or tainted.
I believe that we should hold our elected officials’ feet to the fire, but to vilify Gabby because she didn’t vote on an issue the way you wanted her to, but instead voted pretty much the way she said she would during the election is kind of hypocritical.
As for Raul being some sort of model for Gabby, hardly. If Gabby voted lock step with Grijalva, she would be a lame duck already. Remember, she represents ALL of the folks in CD-8, many of whom are moderate to conservative.
As for Raul, he aint no saintly figure, He runs things very much like old-school Chicago or NYC political machine.
yes, indeed, we did have good progressive candidates in CD8, jeff latas in patricular would not be phased by kow-towing to pelosi and her ilk…rather i want a representative who stands up for what is right, rather than caving to the overriding concern of their re-election. freshmen congress persons do not have much influence, but they can sure show traits of leadership, rather than followership, which unfortunately is the case with gabby.
michael is on track, hold her feet to the fire..
You know, we Democrats laugh and sneer at the loyal 28 percenters that still think Bush is doing a good job.
But now we see those same types within our party who are questioning those who do not agree with Gabby.
That to me is scary.
Gabby is an elected official and by the grace of the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I have a duty as an American to question her and her motives. If I fail to do that, then I do not deserve the right to vote.
Gabby Giffords was given a test by Bush and she (along with other Democrats) failed this nation and the soldiers who are serving in Iraq. She is simply milquetoast as an elected official. For all of you who excuse her as having no power because of her Freshman status, that is cop-out. There is such an ideal as voting your principles.
I would like for all of you to ponder this question: what does Gabby lose by voting her conscience? Dinner with Pelosi? A committee assignment?
If any of these answers are true, then we have just become the embodiment of the Republican Party.
I would like to echo the thoughts of sonorandesertrat: I am not going to hold my nose and vote for a person within my own party if they are not doing what I feel they should be doing DC. My vote is too valuable to throw it away like that.
I want her to have a primary opponent, we need her to have a primary opponent. For those of you who think that will be giving the seat to the Republicans, too damn bad. If the public thinks she is doing a good job they will return her to DC, otherwise she will be off to do other ventures.
Actually, for the first time in a long time, I am represented by a Congressman who has represented my views without fail ever since he was elected.
Guess it escapes me how Grijalva seems to be on the correct side of all the issues, even if the party elders are elsewhere, and Giffords can’t/won’t cross that line.
Think you can get Raul in some Thursday?
At the very least he deserves a cheer for having the ‘nads to vote his progressive convictions.
Giffords is watching her own ass not ours!
Francine seems like a “Whirling Derbish!”
On this issue I agree with Jeff Latas!
First I’d like to bring this back to the impeachment discussion. For those who think that impeaching the current administrative leadership would look like a spiteful and vengeful tactic by Democrats because of Bill Clinton, I disagree. This is about principle. Clinton did not get impeached for a blow job. He was impeached under two articles. Article I charged that the President “…willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury” and made “…corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence” in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Clinton was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for his removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President “…has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice”…, the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit. Given the ten years of history now that separates us from this case, I can not say that if I were in the Senate at the time, I would have supported the President under Article II.
It’s about principle. The Republicans of the late 1990s believed crimes were committed, as I believe more serious crimes have been committed by the Bush administration. I think most Americans agree. Quite frankly, those who are afraid of what the Republicans will “think” need to let those Democrats with the guts to stand up and be heard without any appearance of cowardice. It is the lack of acting on conviction that has made the Democratic run Congress plummet in the polls. We will lose seats in Congress because of a lack of fortitude versus a Democratic Caucus full of ample concession.
Good comment Michael.
Interesting exchange betwen the Gabby backers and questioners.
Far as I’m concerned, we got exactly what we deserved in Giffords.
We had an open seat and a ludicrous GOP primary and general campaign.
We also had several capable PROGRESSIVE candidates for the seat.
We should have mafe a difference, and again, we didn’t.
The Dems, as Giffords is reflecting ala Pelosi, haven’t the political courage to act on their alleged convictions. They do, however, frequently and loudly announce those “convictions”.
If they did act, we would not have a rubber stamp candididate like Gabby nor the remarkably uncharismatic Pedersen.
The country has been hijacked, and hollering shame on you at the hijackers isn’t going to bring it back.
Maybe the resolve to reverse this tyranny just doesn’t exist any more.
It certainly appears as though the answer isn’t in the Democrat party as currently managed.
First of all, I did not say I’d vote Republican. I said I wouldn’t vote Giffords. There is a difference. I can either not vote for a candidate in that race or write someone in.
Second, what say I about a Republican majority coming back? It would be a bad thing. But why should I have to hold my nose so that I can say “Yay for our team!”, I ask? Part of the reason so many Democrats voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq was that they were petrified the Republicans were going to use a vote against it as campaign fodder, to call the Democrats “soft on terror.” Guess what happened in the next election? The Democrats LOST seats. They not only handed the GOP a huge victory by aiding and abetting an illegal war, but in not showing a spine they handed them a second one. Is it OK that a few Dems in a few districts were able to hold their seats because they voted “yes” for this boondoggle? They’ve passed a grand total of one meaningful bill since regaining the majority, and that was the minimum wage increase – which they only got by caving in on Iraq.
And yes, Iraq is a big deal to a LOT of voters. No Iraq means no blue wave at the ballot box last year. Sad, but true.
Being strong means a lot to a lot of voters. I’ll give you a couple of recent examples. First you have John Kerry and the Swift Boaters. Kerry did not come out swinging when the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (a misnomer to be sure) smeared him. He just didn’t respond, afraid that it would cost him in the polls. But failing to stand up in the face of that cost him far more in the polls than fighting back would have. America wanted him to show some mettle. He didn’t. That most likely cost him the election. Then there’s the case of last years election. With Daschle out of the picture, the Democrats under Reid finally started showing some fight in the Senate. (Notwithstanding the cave in on Alito. That one will hurt for decades.) America was looking for that, and the country responded by putting the Democrats in the majority since they finally had some confidence they would fight the good fight. (Still waiting on that one.)
Freshman congressperson or no, I expect some leadership to be shown. She is earning five times the average pay of those who are paying her salary, and she also gets a handsome benefit package – including healthcare far better than any of us will likely get – as well as expenses, government perks, and gifts from lobbyists that make her position worth even more. You’re damn right I’ll hold her feet to the fire. I’m a lifelong Dem, but I do not let any candidate take my vote for granted. Do that and you’re doomed to tepid representatives when you do win. I refuse to play “yay team!” politics.
SonoranDesertRat wrote: “Giffords was sent to Congress by Arizonans who want us to get out of Iraq.”
Do you really think that is the only reason people voted for Giffords??? If they did, they obviously never listened to her. She never said she would vote for immediate withdraw of troops. In fact, she said she opposed blanket immediate pull out.
Folks, she is a freshman Congresswoman. Little hard to take a major leadership role 1/4 of the way through her first term. She hasn’t always voted as I would like, but she has yet to vote in such a way that I feel she should be removed from office.
From x4mr: (quote copied)
I don’t see impeachment. I see band-aids and tourniquets holding back their constitutional carnage best we can, increasing oversight and investigation to uncover the cancer, and a sweep in 2008.
——————————————————-
We are going the band-aid route now and look where it has gotten us: 600 hearings and 1 scooter. Come on, we can do better than that! Gabby Giffords has lost my vote of confidence in her ability to lead. She has shown herself to be a terrific follower, but the leadership part escapes her.
Fabulous, as always, Francine. You stand on the ground of someone who has been there. What I would add to the thread is that while Democrats squeaked into a majority, it is by rather thin margins. The senate could not be thinner. I am hearing rhetoric that seems to reflect larger majorities.
We cannot impeach Bush without impeaching Cheney. My sofa has that figured out. To impeach both? Think about that. I think what needs to happen is actually occurring to some extent. As Michael posted recently regarding Libby, the demons are showing their colors. The escalating outrage and a blue 2008 tidal wave may prove more fruitful and than a bloody effort to impeach both.
I don’t see impeachment. I see band-aids and tourniquets holding back their constitutional carnage best we can, increasing oversight and investigation to uncover the cancer, and a sweep in 2008.
Then some effing effheads need to be prosecuted and sent to prison for high crimes, misdemeanors, and quite possibly treason.
You ask “If the Democrat that’s elected is going to be this soft, then what’s the difference?” I’ll tell you what the difference is.
On the first day of a new Congress, they count how many D and how many R. The ones who have the most get to set the agenda. If you are so stupid (forgive me, but I’m mad!) as to think we are better off in the hands of a Republican Congress then I want to know under what rock you’ve been living for these past years.
No Democrat has ever in my loooong memory treated any Republican the way Sensenbrenner treated John Conyers, making him find a room in the basement to hold a hearing! No Democrat in the House or the Senate, when Democrats were in the majority, said, as have many Republicans in positions of power these past Republican years “We won – you lost – get over it!” Republicans pride themselves, since they have been in the minority in this Congress, of successfully stalling Democrats in their efforts to get legislation passed.
From TPM on June 20):
“For the last several years, Republicans, with a 55-seat majority, cried like young children if Dems even considered a procedural hurdle. They said voters would punish obstructionists. They said it was borderline unconstitutional. They said to stand in the way of majority rule was to undermine a basic principle of our democratic system.
And wouldn’t you know it; the shameless hypocrites didn’t mean a word of it. As Roll Call reported this week, 239 separate bills have passed the House, only to find Senate Republicans “objecting to just about every major piece of legislation” that Harry Reid has tried to bring to the floor, whether it enjoys bi-partisan support or not.
Indeed, Senate Republicans — the ones accusing Dems of being a “do-nothing Congress” — are proud of their efforts. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott boasted, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it’s working for us.”
Voters are understandably frustrated about the lack of legislative achievements thus far, but the explanation is surprisingly straightforward: Republicans won’t allow up-or-down votes on anything of significance.”(end of TPM quote)
And no Democrat, when the Democrats had the majority, did what Hastert did, with the Medicare Part D bill, by holding the vote open into the night until he could twist enough arms – that was after instituting rules that prevented any – ANY- amendments and passing that miserable piece of legislation!
That’s some of what the difference is – there’s more, if you will take the time to check the record and become aware of what is going on. You think Gabby should do something different? Fine! Tell her what she has to do to represent you. But for goodness sake, don’t bite off your nose to spite your face by voting in a Republican in CD 8!
OK, forest for the trees? Giffords was sent to Congress by Arizonans who want us to get out of Iraq. The same group of people also is tired of George W. Bush and his increasing abuses of executive power. Witness the constant approval ratings in the 30s for the last two years. Now she’s sitting there and doing Pelosi’s bidding – by her own admission. She is not taking anything that passes for a courageous stand. You don’t think that’s going to be attack fodder for the Republicans come next year? She’s not showing strength. She’s not making a stand on the chief issues that she was sent to Washington to deal with. You say that there’s a group of us fixed on one or two issues. Those “one or two issues” is what put her in Congress in the first place. If she doesn’t take strong steps to deal with this, then people are going to be screaming about it, and rightfully so.
Kraj, listening and moving on Iraq? I’d hope so. But she already had her chance to do something the first time Iraq was brought before this Congress. Had she voted to get us out of there, we would not be after her today. We would know that she’s standing for something rather than just trying to get re-elected.
Right now Congress is not being an effective check to the Bush administration. They cannot get bills passed, even with a majority in both houses. Much of this is because of members worried about doing something that the Republicans might try to use against them in an election. As a result, Bush continues to abuse the power of the Executive Branch unabatedly. And Cheney has been even worse. We have lost so much over the past several years. And they continue to rattle sabers at Iran. If they are not made to account for what they have done so far, we may very well find ourselves at war with Iran. Movement needs to be made immediately to impeach Cheney. That is the only chance we have to get Bush to finally start respecting the law, because if he does not do so after that, he will be next. It will not come off as sour grapes, unless you’re a right-wing talk show host. No administration has done so much to warrant impeachment since Nixon. Congress must act. If not, and another Republican is elected to the Oval Office, why would they respect the law? It’s not like anyone is going to make them.
Giffords is not showing herself to be effective at a time when the nation needs it the most. If she doesn’t, I will not vote for her next year. You’re going to scream about this letting a Republican win the district. If the Democrat that’s elected is going to be this soft, then what’s the difference? If she chooses to show true leadership, and do the things this country needs her to do, then getting re-elected will be easy.
I guess I need to repeat this idea: citizens are not politicians. See my previous post: http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2007/05/i_am_not_a_poli.html
We shouldn’t slink about advocating incremental change and moderation. Leave that to the politicians. Our job is to hold the politician’s feet to the fire and demand what we believe is right, not to make excuses for them not to do what is right because it is pragmatic or good for their re-election campaign. If you think that’s Gabby bashing, so be it. But it is ony demanding Gabby do what’s right.
Rumor has it that David Waid resigned as head of the AZ. Democratic Party.
If true, I guess those who were saying that the the State Convention were right.
I’m with kralmajales. There seems to be a very vocal group that is so bent on their ideology in regards to one or two issues that they can’t see the forest for the trees. I fear a contentious CD8 primary that will leave Giffords battered, bruised and vulnerable. If the Republicans can manage to get unified for the primary (recent history says no, but you never know). We lost this seat 23 years ago, we can’t afford to lose it again.
AS far as impeachment goes, going after GWB will come of as sour grapes from the Clinton fiasco. That is how it will be labeled. It will bring both houses of Congress to a halt and turn an already far too partisan process into trench warfare. The American people would be the biggest losers.
Cheney, however, is a ripe target. They need to work his refusal to hand over documents a little more, first. Set him up. Gonzales may be an even easier target, though.
Dang…no rest for the Anti-Gabby crowd here. It appears she is listening and moving on Iraq…with the rest of the leadership…and that doesn’t appear to be enough. Nothing seems to be. You seem to be hell bent on attacking those in your own party at every level and not the Republicans who created this mess in the first place.
Change is incremental in American Democracy.
The handwringing continues.
Is she our Representative, or a Pelosi puppet?
Me thinks the latter.
Help Final Push to Impeachment
It’s time! ImpeachForPeace.org is traveling to Washington DC at the end of this month to deliver thousands of Do-It-Yourself Impeachment Memorials to key representatives in the House!
Support for impeachment is building. As of this writing, 14 reps are supporting Dennis Kucinich’s resolution to impeach Dick Cheney (H. Res. 333).
Even if you’ve sent them to your congressperson before, send us your DIY Memorials before we go:
http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
You may not realize that the only thing standing between where we are today and a nationally televised impeachment investigation is the House Judiciary passing this resolution, which is currently awaiting consideration in their
committee. The head of this committee, John Conyers, has said recently that he supports the national impeachment movement.
All we need to push it over the edge is public support, and that’s where we come in.
Video of our trip will be posted on our website shortly upon our return. We’ll let you know when it’s up!
Click here to be a part of this:
http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
Here’s a funny video about this unique strategy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9p2MnJwzaU