Not only did she roll over at the beck and call of the Democratic leadership, she was too ineffectual to at least demand some of the large amount of pork being passed around in the process. Do you think she maybe could have acted like a principled moderate, that she ran as, for a few hours or so, and gotten some type of border enforcement funds put in the bill in exchange for her vote to surrender? Maybe a drone or two, perhaps. If we are using the bill for shrimp research the drones at least make some amount of sense from a security standpoint.
I hope that there is enough room in Raul Grijalva's back pocket that Gabby can remain comfortable in there, because she sure doesn't seem to be emerging any time soon.
Seriously though, I believe that Gabby missed a large opportunity with this vote, by not getting some type of cover that even a token border provision could have provided. If you are going to vote for defeat AND pork, at least make sure some of the pork is yours. She will need to be smarter in the future, or she can grab a seat next to Dexy's Midnight Runners.
11 comments:
Sirocco,
If the position was that popular, why the need to bribe Representatives and Senators with over 20 billion of pork?
You aren't counting polls of "adults" that aren't checked for likely voters as the gospel truth again are you?
On a side note, did you notice that in the same poll that "is the situation in Iraq going well?" has went from 30% to 40% in one month? That is huge.
It isn't Bush that congress is directly poking in the eye, it's Patreaus. And so far, the reviews of his performance have been very good.
We'll see what happens.
I did think a few times about the headline, and you are perhaps right. Since someone finds it offensive, I will remove it.
The point I was making is that there were certain things that could have been included in the bill that would have HELPED her and the district, that would not have been controversial. Spinach and shrimp farming were beyond the pale, but Gabby has a very military district, she is on the committee, there are plenty of things that she could have asked for that would have been good additions to a war bill AND helped the district, she did neither. She voted for the stinker of a bill because she followed marching orders, something she expressly said she would not do when running. The blue dogs have been effective in certain measures, Gabby has been a pawn to this point.
Sorry, last point.
This should have been perhaps the apex of Gabby's influence based on where she is from, where she sits, and what she promised during the election. If she could exert no influence here, at what point does anyone think that she will be more than a second proxy vote for Grijalva?
Of course with some of my readers, that is entirely fine. That is certainly not how she ran however.
Yeah, Verily!
I sent communication directly to her expressing the same thoughts. Particular point - as always - BEFORE election and AFTER.
She went to Wasington as another Grijalva "echo chamber Bobble Head" with no substantive plans of her own. Just another oar in the water along with Raul's relatives and former assistants aiming for all branches of government in this City and County making him Supreme Ruler!
Roger,
Here is the problem, think it through.
What happens the day, the month or in the years after we leave? I have seen very few Liberals address this. Face it, you don't have the slightest clue nor do you care. Will it end? Look at what our retreat in Somalia bought us. I challenge you to find a real, honest-to-goodness soldier that has returned from Iraq (and not someone posing as one on Move-on.org) and speak to them about the issue, I bet you'd be surprised.
Yes, I believe the war is necessary, and quite frankly, eventually a war with Iran will be necessary. They have already been waging war against us for years, at some point we will need to respond. These people aren't going away without some type of confrontation. If the lives lost to this point and the money spent gives us a chance to have that confrontation pre-nuclear Iran, it will have been worth it a thousand times over.
Quite frankly outside of Sirocco, X4mr, and Joe Lieberman, I have not seen one liberal even dare to take a look into that crystal ball. Sometimes you need to think outside the bumper sticker.
Framer-
It's tragically amusing to hear those of you who got us into Iraq without a plan to win demanding a plan from those of us tired of this war that never should have happened in the first place. Far too many American lives have been sacrificed in pursuit of Bush's misguided effort in Iraq. We went in driven by faulty intelligence, a twisted view of America's role in the world and several outright lies told by our leaders.
I don't think a withdrawal date emboldens our enemies. What it does is let the Iraqis know that they have timelines to meet to settle their own affairs with us still around to help them out. The withdrawal will be staged, discreet and our intentions known in advance. This puts the onus on the Iraqis, where it damn well should be.
You seem awfully eager to shed more blood and tout the anecdotes of others who have done the fighting to justify your zealous belief in this war and the other one you seek against Iran. I'm sure that this post will prompt another blast of name-calling wrapped in jingoism from you and your ilk.
Those of us who have supported every other American military effort in our lifetimes know that this venture in Iraq has stained the reputation of our country as an honest broker in the world. Bush has guaranteed himself a spot amongst the ranks of our worst presidents because of this despicable war. Thank God we had Gabby and not Graf (or Bee!) in office when this vote was cast!
Sirocco, reps are supposed to represent their constituents. Given that this is a majority-Republican district with a large military and former military presence, one has to wonder if she's accurately representing the majority of her constituents.
Rex, anything resembling a valid point you had to make was lost in the wild-eyed rhetoric.
Sirocco, I would wager fairly safe money that almost everyone wants us out of Iraq. It's the circumstances and timing of our departure that are up for debate. Would a deadline for withdrawal have met- then or now- with the approval of the majority of people in this district?
I'd like to know if anyone has seen a poll conducted in this district on that question. My guess would be no, but that's based on the political demographics of the district.
Then again, I also believe that Giffords didn't win this seat in 2006; the Republicans lost it.
Well, I referenced this post at my own place.
I think it is entirely premature for Giffords to be bucking the flow. It's too soon. She articulated her efforts quite effectively in her State of the District Friday.
As I said there, this is a good thread. The Middle East is a disaster where win and lose have lost almost all meaning. We cannot win. We cannot lose.
Said another way, we cannot afford victory or defeat. Whatever happens will be something different. This mess does not have a happy ending.
To say that a withdrawal implies surrender and loss is not accurate. Withdrawal probably means civil war and a slaughter of biblical proportions leading to god knows what. Iran? Saudi Arabia? Israel?
China is looking to Africa for oil, but that could change.
I'm an independent and have supported Republicans worth supporting, and there are plenty of them.
Bush is the worst president this country has ever elected, and matters are going to get worse before they get better, if they ever do.
Do the Shiites actually know how many Sunnis there are?
One of these days a nuclear warhead is going to explode somewhere. This planet is going to get a lot hotter before it cools back down.
I wonder if it will have any people still on it.
My next door neighbot, who is a Democrat, got some info from Gabby about forums. I guess she doesn't consider Republicans in her district constituents. What a rude little twit!!
maricopa isn't evil,
With only two minutes to give to this, let me just say that I can't wait to hear what all the warmongers who got in line behind Bush/Cheney have to say when the Iraqi Parliment passes the oil law that privatizes the second largest known reserves of sweet crude on the planet. Yes, Mr. War on Terror, what will your friends and peers be saying about 35 year, very lucrative contracts awarded to Exxon, Chevron, and the rest? Oh, yes, and "petroleum executives" will be sitting on the new "Federal Oil and Gas Council" essentially writing their own contracts. Sweet deal if you can get it, huh?
Well, they don't discuss this on Fox News, so apparently you War on Terror guys haven't heard yet. But, at least right now, this promises to be Bush's major victory in Iraq. Oh, yeah, by the way, the US won't be leaving Iraq because Exxon needs military protection. You can't expect them to hire a private army now can you? Of course, if they do end up hiring a private army, maybe people like you can go to Iraq for Big Oil.
Oh, yeah, meant to ask you this. Exactly where are those permanent military bases in Iraq? Think they might have anything to do with getting the oil to the Persian Gulf?
But oil had nothing to do with it, right? The oil just happens to be there. What a coincidence.
Post a Comment