Gabrielle Giffords Returns to the House

2 Aug

Yesterday, the vote voted in favor of the debt ceiling/spending cuts deal hashed out to avoid default. Tea partiers and the left detest the deal, which probably means it’s not that bad. Notably, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head by an armed madman in January, returned to the House to cast her vote in favor of the compromise package.

Welcome back, Congresswoman.


21 Responses to “Gabrielle Giffords Returns to the House”

  1. Leo Wilson August 2, 2011 at 9:01 am #


  2. Eric Saldanha August 2, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    An amazing recovery for the Congresswoman, but as to the media coverage and her reception in the House, I’m with Bill Maher. Will no one point out that many of the dullards clapping so wildly for her are the same NRA-owned tools who work overtime to ensure that maniacs like the one who shot Rep. Giffords have ready and easy access to high-powered weaponry?

    To paraphrase Michael Herr, the hypocrisy is stacked so high, you need wings to stay above it.

  3. Leo Wilson August 2, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    @Eric – while I lived in Florida in the mid 80’s, a madman went into a crowded supermarket in Jacksonville, splashed a bucket of gasoline onto a line of patrons waiting to check out and threw a match.

    NRA support or lack thereof and access to guns or lack thereof doesn’t stop a lone, befuddled madman intent on doing harm.

    I’m going to stick with my original post: Gabby has Moxie, with a capital M. If any don’t admire her, they may be broken.

  4. Eric Saldanha August 2, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    @ Leo – I breathlessly await the statistics on gas fire attacks on crowded supermarket lines that come close to the number of gun deaths we have in the nation currently.

    The shorter version of your post is “Welp, no way we can stop the deranged from harming us, so we might as well let them have automatic machinery to wipe us out.”

  5. Brian August 2, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    It was nice of her to give political cover to her Democratic colleagues that were betraying the middle class.

  6. Leo Wilson August 2, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    @Eric – perhaps we’re a little too removed from and calloused toward the people impacted. Statistics, really? What percentage of those orphaned in any attack count, and what percentage can be discounted? What do you think matters to those orphaned, what made it so Mommy isn’t coming home, or that she’ll never kiss a boo-boo, hug them tight or tuck them in again?

  7. Ward August 2, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    And of course, everybody knew that Jared Lee Loughner was a Tea Party and NRA member, and followed Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman on Twitter, and subscribed to the Weekly Standard, and watched Fox News 24/7. And that the “tone” of right-wing commentary put the gun in his hand.

    Except none of that proved true.

    Flash forward to this week, when Tom Friedman set the “tone” for the Left. The Tea Party is the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP bent on taking the country on a “suicide mission.” Republicans are “hostage takers” “terrorists” (Biden) and “traitors”. They want to “end life as we know it on this planet” (Pelosi). So far, no “Hitler” or “Nazis”, but the week is young.

    Congresswoman Giffords was the only gracious one–she waved, smiled (while Pelosi kept yapping), voted and went home.

  8. Starbuck August 2, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    Tea partiers and the left detest the deal

    That relates to my question.

    When anyone on the left votes against raising the debt limit (as Louise Slaughter did yesterday, or Sens. Obama, Reid, Biden, & Schumer all did in 2006 when 100% of D senators voted no), that’s legitimate, respectable, and isn’t said by establishment leaders in Congress or the VP’s office to be acting like terrorists.

    But when any “Tea Party” members of Congress vote no, or even say they might vote no, the same way Slaughter, Obama, Reid, Biden, and Schumer all have actually voted on the same issue – well, that’s totally different because…. why?

    Bonus question:
    When will the any of the MSM interrogate Slaughter, Obama, Reid, Biden, or Schumer about their no votes (this time in Louise’s case or in past years for the others)? I don’t mean just ask them once politely then let it go accepting any response they give. I mean when will they dig in Russert-style or Maddow-style on any of them and keep demanding a real answer about why they wanted to default, wanted to not pay our bills, and wanted to ruin our economy or at least hold it hostage like terrorists?

  9. jimd August 2, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    #8 The answer it is politcal gamesmanship. It is not uncommon when a “better than nothing” bill comes along, as long as there are enough votes to pass it, some will register a no vote as a protest. If the bill is in jeopardy of not passing, they will tow the party line. The opposing party on the other hand, vote their conscience (assuming they have one). Regarding the 2006 vote, my guess is by then anyone with a soul realized Bush etal were criminals and well, fuck it, it’s the least they could do.

  10. Carl August 2, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Hmm, Ward…I seem to recall the guy who shot up the church in Knoxville, killing 2, mentioning on the record that he wanted to off all of the people in Bernard Goldberg’s book, but didn’t have the stones to do it.

    You were saying….?

  11. jimd August 2, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    Ward that is a silly argument. Anyone that is honest has to recognize handguns are the coin of the realm to cause mayhem. Of course there is the odd fire, knife, hammer, hatchet yada, yada killing. But c’mon man, you can do better than that.

  12. Greg August 2, 2011 at 9:49 pm #

    This is for you, Ward.

  13. Leo Wilson August 2, 2011 at 10:32 pm #

    I think we should follow Great Britain’s lead on the gun control issue. Make the police use sticks for 200 years, then ask the people in a referendum if they want to give up their right to bear arms…

  14. Leo Wilson August 2, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    Or, maybe something more reasonable… make gov’t employees at all levels use the non-lethal and less-lethal weapons that have been developed in the still ongoing program JFK’s admin started to create such weapons. If all levels of government can refrain from killing civilians on US soil for 10 years, the citizens get that referendum.

    I”m pretty sure that the people would allow consideration of action on restricting themselves after only two years of gov’t not killing civilians, too. I doubt it wold take the whole 10 years.

  15. Eric Saldanha August 3, 2011 at 12:42 am #

    @Leo – “government killing civilians on US soil”

    I’m sure you’re referring to the assassination of Fred Hampton of the Black Panthers in 1969 or the killing of four unarmed students at Kent State in 1970 or the three civil rights activists kidnapped, tortured and killed in Philadelphia, MS in 1964, right? The Tea Party was all about those injustices, right?

  16. Leo Wilson August 3, 2011 at 7:41 am #

    @Eric – I remember most of those things. I don’t know about the TEA “party” (I still say, “TEA movement”, ’cause that’s what it is), but I’ve been saying this same thing for decades, long before the TEA movement was conceived. When someone posted about the Rolling Stones, why do you think I asked about “Heartbreaker”? And, why stretch so far back? We’ve had lots more examples, since.

    That less-lethal and non-lethal warfare research at Andrews AFB has spend tens of millions of dollars every year since JFK was in office. Its high time we reaped the benefit of investing our tax dollars in it for so long. Yes, yours are good examples of why government thugs shouldn’t be able allowed lethal force… but there are many more on both sides of any aisle you care to identify.

    Are you really using such good examples as an argument to my point, which obliquely identifies exactly why there’s a 2nd amendment in the first place?

  17. Leo Wilson August 3, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    What do you think about what’s happening in Syria today, Eric? Just curious…

  18. Leo Wilson August 3, 2011 at 7:52 am #

    I’d have answered the question, “Not yet, Senator Kennedy, but certainly the one you want to turn our government into.”

  19. Leo Wilson August 3, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    Here’s another thing about my suggestion: It wouldn’t take a constitutional convention to implement, just a change of workplace rules for paid employees. Since about 1 in three uses of firearms against civilians in our country is perpetrated by law enforcement types (I can’t cite a reference for that, its been about 35 years since I read it), it would eliminate 1/3 of all the gun violence in the country simpy by mandating workplace rules.

    What’s the down side, that cops wouldn’t be able to shoot anyone any more?

  20. Starbuck August 3, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    @jimd, nice selective outrage if the left side of the aisle is immune from criticism for dissenting on an issue Obama and the whole MSM all insist was urgent for America.

    Slaughter and Gillibrand can stomp their feet and vote no yesterday to a #compromise that Obama shouts is critically important for the nation’s economy and needed to ensure he’ll send Social Security payments this week.  

    The Buffalo News front page headline today says literally that abyss was avoided because the debt limit was raised by Aug 2.  If so, then Slaughter and Gillibrand voted in favor of abyss and for seniors to not receive SS payments today – their own version of hostage taking like terrorists because the debt limit raising wasn’t tied to tax hikes they demanded.

    And that’s supposedly the side that shows candid grown up leadership?  

    Either it would have been a big disaster to not raise the debt limit by Aug 2, or it wouldn’t have.  Enough with having it both ways while calling others terrorist-like hostage takers for trying to influence conditions of passage the same way many prominent Ds have done this time and many times – and will again.

  21. Eric Saldanha August 4, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    @ Starbuck (and Jesse, for that matter) – Please cite an action by any of the Democrats you mentioned in any previous debt ceiling vote that approaches the utter sociopathy of the Senate Minority Leader’s admission that the GOP held the debt ceiling raise hostage and brought us to the brink of fiscal disaster (again to get social program spending cuts they can’t achieve through the normal legislative process.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: