Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Giffords giving her vote away for free

I realize that there has been a lot said in the local blogosphere about Gabby Giffords vote for surrender. I agree it was shameful for a whole host of reasons. however, I think that people are being far too kind to Gabby in retrospect.

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.


sirocco said...


Considering a large majority of Americans favor eexiting Iraq, even if it means placing deadlines on the bill (59% was the last figure I saw), Giffords' vote WAS indicative of the "moderate" position.

Framer said...


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.

Sonoran Sam said...

So, Giffords gets abused by you (complete with sexist innuendo in the headline) because she DIDN'T demand a piece of pork in exchange for her vote.

Of course, if she did secure some crumbs for CD8, you'd be all over like flies on horse pucks because she was SELLING HER VOTE.

Can you righties spell hypocrisy?

Framer said...

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.

Framer said...

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.

romel said...

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!

Kralmajales said...

Man is all you Republicans have now is the "defeat" mantra. It suggests that $500 + Billion dollars and over 3000 lives and over 20000 serious injuries is all worth it...if we can save our face and declare some kind of victory?

Worth it?

Framer said...


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 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.

Rex Scott said...


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 said...

Framer, et. al.,

Sorry, I left town yesterday morning, and will be unable to engage in regular debate for a week or so, so I apologize for my less-than-timely responses.

First, reps are not supposed to solely represent "likley voters". I doubt the poll I was looking at asked about voting habits, nor should it have. The simple fact is "most" Americans, by a wide margin, favor the deadline in the bill. It's the "moderate" position.

No, it's not Petreus they are poking in the eye, it's Bush ... and since I believe you made your post fairly early yesterday, are things going even better in Iraq now that one of the ugliest days in the war has occurred right after you made it?

Anonymous said...

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 said...


I don't recall seeing any polling regarding specifics such as setting deadlines, etc. However, prior to the Nov. elections (early last Oct. I believe) there was a clear majority within the district indicating a preference for getting out of Iraq.

Folks might say that was six months ago, and a lot has happened since then, and I would agree with them. On the other hand, there's nothing indicate those views have abated either.

Anonymous said...

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.

Kralmajales said...

I cannot believe what I am reading. We provoked the war with Iraq based on faulty intelligence. We went to war without a shred of evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction. And there appears to be no end to it based on what Framer says about Iran.

Why? Honestly, why? Must we do this? Is the worlds hatred of us such that we must attack them first to sustain ourselves? Is this what it has come to? That anyone who dares create a weapon or speak badly about the way that we treat them an enemy that must be ground into the dirt with the blood of our men and women?

God I will be honest with you. If that it what it is all about..if that is what it takes...unprovoked sustain us...then what kind of freedom, what kind of liberty, what kind of country is it that we live in. What seperates us in any way, from them?

I care not for victory when such a victory...such a victory that some of you clamor for, is so very very hollow, shallow, and worthless.

I just don't understand nor do I think I could explain to my soon to be first born, why we have to do this, to be great, to be safe, or to be free.

Kralmajales said...

Let me ask this, following my last post.

Those of you who favor this war, do you favor reinstating the draft? Why? Why not?

The truth is that there are not enough troops to sustain this war. There are not enough troops to even come close to going after Iran. There are not enough troops to even come close to moving into the mountains in the southern region of Afghanistan, where so many many many Russian soldiers died.

Is all of this worth what it would take to do what most Generals know? Would it be worth it?

I can tell you this. I can't imagine putting my son in that place. Can you imagine giving yours up, for this?

If you believe what you are saying about this war, you better damned well believe in a draft because the only way you are going to sustain a war in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan will be to use force on our own sons and daughters to MAKE them fight.

I dont think many in America could stomach that.

Maricopa Isn't Evil said...

Honestly Kral, you and your MoveOn talking points get old fast... Victory in Iraq is possible (if the Dems don't surrender fast enough to make a Frenchman blush) and critically important. You didn't mind when Clinton ran from Somalia and you are still incapable of making the connection to 9-11 from that event, in spite of the tremendous amount of coverage of Bin Laden's inspiration coming from his sense that Americans didn't have the stomach for a fight and that we could therefore be beaten.

They started this war and we need to finish it before Iran and North Korea gives them nuclear weapons to bring to one of our cities. If all Americans were like you then Bin Laden would be right and we would ultimately lose because we lack the courage and fortitude to pay the price to win this war. I could spend a lot of time ashamed of you as a fellow American and worried about the state of our country that people your shade of yellow should control our Congress. Instead I shall remain uplifted and hopeful, knowing that real leaders reside in the White House and real heroes are fighting on the battlefields, winning this war for us.

I'm sure you'll come back to me now with some drivel about how you protest because you love our troops, how you love our country, and how you're just trying to make sure that the world will love us, etc. Save it... You and your ilk give our enemies hope and strength. You are so desperate to beat Bush that would take sides with the Saddam Husseins and Kim Jong Ils of this world. If America losing is the price to pay for beating Bush, then you and your friends in the Democrat party will happily pay.

We won't pay that price. You are a disgrace sir and we will not let you and your allies beat us. God bless the troops, our president, and our country.

When He is done perhaps he can spare a moment to shine his light upon you.


5.5 years since 9-11 and still no more attacks upon U.S. soil... The left would have you believe our President has failed. They are fools.

x4mr said...

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.

GOP Boomer Gal said...

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!!

sirocco said...

Uhm ... GOP Boomer Gal, I have no idea where your friend derived this notion, but considering the amount of crossover votes and donations Giffords received in the election, I am pretty sure that's not a fair representation of her views concerning constituants.

I, too, would love to see some updated polling regarding specific stances in the district by voters on Iraq deadlines, health care issues, border approaches, etc. I suspect a majority favor the deadlines (in general D + I do, R do not), but not by as wide as margin as is true nationally.

Kralmajales said...

I have been trying to think of how to respond to "Maricopa isn't Evil" on his charges of me using Move On talking points and that I am yellow.

Frankly, I don't care whether I disgust you or not. Doesn't matter a hill of beans to me, sir, because I am right and you are wrong. I stand for peace and you stand for war and victory at all costs. I hope for your sake that none of the direct costs of war fall on your family, your friends, or any of your loved ones. That is my kindest hope for you.

As X4mr says eloquently, this is a war that cannot be won or lost. The enemy is one day Sunni insurgents and the next day Shia insurgents. One day we want our puppet government in control and the next we begin to realize that we have formed and literally completed the Shia Cresent that Bush talked about when Hezbolah reared its ugly head against Israel.

This war has damaged the worlds impression of my country which has always been "better" and "greater" and a beacon of freedom. This war has tarnished our image when this "shining light" and some in our military lied to our own people and the world. It might be one thing is the lies were about a health care plan or firing a prosecutor, but this is about life and death.

The war you support is wrong and has harmed us. Such actions in other parts of the world would be called treason. Instead, we vote you out of power. And that is what this war, now, is all about for you...nothing but power, slogans, and protecting your base. Again, that would be fine if it wasn't being done with the blood of our soldiers and the blood of innocents.

This war sent our solidiers, my brother in fact, into harms way for nothing. There was never a link to terrorism, it was about nation-building plain and simple. Actually, I am not sure what it was about now, because the goal and what "victory" is supposed to be about changes with this administration almost daily. All we know from you side is if we stop, the region might slip into chaos and that we would be looked at as failures. Well, this Presidency is a failure and those who support it support failure.

In the end, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. We don't even know who are enemy is. We just call them "insurgents" or "Al Qaeda" in flippant fashion.

I could give a crap about or anything else. I don't care what they believe...what I believe and have since day one is that that this war was wrong.

What I want is peace and for our country to be that beacon of freedom and hope again. It won't be under this Republican party and it won't be under this adminstration.

For some of you to call some of us "yellow" just stinks when none of you here are willing to back up your war with a draft, which is what it would take to win whatever kind of war you think this is. Yellow is to send these soldiers into battle for your selfish purposes, your hatred, and for revenge. That is as cowardly as cowardly can be.

Finally, sir, about 70% of the American people disagree with you now. You are marginalized sir. Few agree with you. When you call me yellow you call 70% of America yellow as well...and for should be ashamed.

Liza said...

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.

Kralmajales said...


You are right on. Two minutes well spent.

To address a few things you raise.

On oil, of course that is the problem...right as rain. The oil is in the Shia controlled south predominantly. We don't have as much in common with the Shias as does Iran...and its close there too. We are most concerned with being sure the very enemy we fought, the Sunnis, have some stake in that oil that is not sitting in their province...which is strange. Why? Well, aren't our friends the Arabs sunni arab as well? Anyway.

You mentioned whether they could hire a private army. I think you are wrong there. They can. Blackwater Security has grown and grown in size in Iraq. Where we cannot get troops without a draft, we contract out and hire them as mercenaries. A big big problem there too. Imagine if we take this far...private armies under American a dangerous precedent.

On the base...well my father is a contractor and worked on that base. It is called Camp Anaconda, its no secret, and it is just north of Baghdad (70K north). The base is a huge part of this entire war. It was originally going to be constructed and used to pull all troops out of Europe and moved there. According to those over there working on the base. It it much more strategic, near the oil, and between Iran, Syria, and near the oil and gas rich areas of the former Soviet Union.

There is a lot at stake for the administration over there. I think you are right about what they are fighting for, but the terror part is a total ruse. If we wanted to root it out, we could with a 1/4 of the troops and with good intell. and quick strike capacity.

We didn't have to take over (er...liberate) and occupy (er...peace keep) to do it.