Worst voting record in the house, this is heinous

[angrysoba]

I haven't really followed what has become of Loughner since then. Presumably there would have been some evidence emerging regarding his supposed political beliefs. I thought it might be worth listening to what he says and see what he does if we take the question of his motivation seriously rather than concocting a narrative and forgetting about the evidence.

Anyway, this article suggests he is really not very right in the head and doesn't seem to give any credence to the "politically-motivated" view, which itself comes across as politically-motivated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ng-Jared-Loughners-fate-is-still-unclear.html

 

[L.Y.S.]

There's no law in Arizona mandating the replacement of federal agents unless in the case of death. I don't believe the state of Arizona has the direct authority to replace federal agents, nor would it be a very popular move on the part of Arizona to try and replace the survivor of a cranial gun shot wound.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

And even if his insanity did have political elements, I still think there's no reason to claim these various speech acts were connected.

Speaking of the Unabomber--just because he spouted a particularly incoherent form of leftist ecological positions in his manifesto doesn't mean that environmentalists are in any way responsible for his actions.

I agree on both points. I only used the two examples of both sides of the spectrum to show where political rhetoric actually did have a provable effect in contrast to this one where there is no evidence or even an indication that political rhetoric was a factor.

 

[Cain]

From your own source:

Kelly was the commander of Endeavour on its last mission - STS-134 to the ISS - while his wife, Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was recovering from the headshot she received in the Tucson shooting in January.​

He didn't retire until after he flew a shuttle mission, which was while his wife was recovering.

No kidding? It's like you and Joe are assembling a confederacy of fools. That's why I asked which mission, because according to this article, he quit.

Cain: Didn't he retire to take care of her?
Ari Fleischer B.S.: No. He flew a space shuttle mission.

No, he retired. Astronauts spend an obscene amount of time preparing for a mission, but after it was complete, he quit.

I'm sure that if Scalia was shot in the head -- incapacitating him more than usual -- you would be outraged if he decided to hang onto his job as long as Obama was still in office.

Should everyone be immediately fired from their job if they become disabled, or should they be allowed time to recover? If she didn't want to continue with her job, she would probably retire from it.

The equivocation here is rather astonishing. People who are disabled to the point of unable to fulfill their duties should quit. If she does not possess the wisdom to see that, then she probably shouldn't be in office. Do you not think there's a spectrum of disability/incapacity from Ariel Sharon's coma to McConnell's cold weather knee pain? Giffords was shot in the head, lucky to be alive.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You can't really compare any Federal Judge to a member of Congress. There are procedures for the removal of a judge for incompetence or incapacitation but unless a member of congress has violated the constitution or major federal laws the decision is left to the constituents of the district being represented. The idea is to keep some states or parties from excluding any legally elected representative from the political process except for a few very specific reasons. Incapacitation or incompetence isn't one of them. Can you imagine the mess that we'd have it it did?

 

[angrysoba]

You can't really compare any Federal Judge to a member of Congress. There are procedures for the removal of a judge for incompetence or incapacitation but unless a member of congress has violated the constitution or major federal laws the decision is left to the constituents of the district being represented. The idea is to keep some states or parties from excluding any legally elected representative from the political process except for a few very specific reasons. Incapacitation or incompetence isn't one of them. Can you imagine the mess that we'd have it it did?

Indeed, political activists from one party or another would be constantly trying to dream up ways in which someone is incapacitated and can't perform their job anymore. Someone is too old, is a bit deaf in one ear, is blind, has Alzheimer's, needs the use of a wheelchair, has cancer etc...

 

[Cain]

Indeed, political activists from one party or another would be constantly trying to dream up ways in which someone is incapacitated and can't perform their job anymore. Someone is too old, is a bit deaf in one ear, is blind, has Alzheimer's, needs the use of a wheelchair, has cancer etc...

But this slippery slope does not even apply. Giffords is above reproach because a lunatic tried to gun her down. The opposition will not say anything. And if someone had cancer, the same sort of decorum, even in this climate, would probably take hold. All the more reason for someone to speak an unpopular truth in spite of hand-wringing and emotional appeals.


Sam.I.Am

You can't really compare any Federal Judge to a member of Congress. There are procedures for the removal of a judge for incompetence or incapacitation but unless a member of congress has violated the constitution or major federal laws the decision is left to the constituents of the district being represented.

The "difference" here is in-law-only and fails to cut to the heart of the issue. I'm not suggesting white-bearded men rule on whether or not she serves. I'm saying that, in my view, there are compelling reasons for her to step down. Maybe we ought to have a mechanism other than elections or social shaming in place (as we have one regarding the president, thanks to a Constitutional amendment). No one disputes her legal authority to maintain her seat (or that O.J. Simpson was found not guilty for double-homicide).

If Giffords had surrendered her seat -- because she's understandably far too busy and compromised to fulfill her duties -- then she would be praised as a stateswoman. She holds her seat, makes an appearance for the debt ceiling and... she's praised as a stateswoman. Please. This is a public opinion governed by emotions.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Sam.I.Am


The "difference" here is in-law-only and fails to cut to the heart of the issue. I'm not suggesting white-bearded men rule on whether or not she serves. I'm saying that, in my view, there are compelling reasons for her to step down. Maybe we ought to have a mechanism other than elections or social shaming in place (as we have one regarding the president, thanks to a Constitutional amendment). No one disputes her legal authority to maintain her seat (or that O.J. Simpson was found not guilty for double-homicide).

If Giffords had surrendered her seat -- because she's understandably far too busy and compromised to fulfill her duties -- then she would be praised as a stateswoman. She holds her seat, makes an appearance for the debt ceiling and... she's praised as a stateswoman. Please. This is a public opinion governed by emotions.

Let me make it clear. If she were my representative I would be calling for her to step aside and endorse her replacement (who would most likely be a shoe-in no matter who they were). But she's not and it's not my call to make.

I wouldn't want it any other way really. Her job is only for 2 years at a time and if she can't campaign her opponents will hammer her over it using essentially the same logic that you are using and rightfully so. If she gets elected then her constituents will get the representation that they deserve (meaning essentially none).

 

[angrysoba]

But this slippery slope does not even apply. Giffords is above reproach because a lunatic tried to gun her down. The opposition will not say anything. And if someone had cancer, the same sort of decorum, even in this climate, would probably take hold. All the more reason for someone to speak an unpopular truth in spite of hand-wringing and emotional appeals.

I wonder why this is a "slippery slope"? I am just saying that if people could be made to resign on health grounds then it would open up another front for parties to get rid of their opponents.

Anyway, I said before what I think is the best way of proceeding on this. It is to ask the electorate what they want:

As for whether Giffords should not be a Congresswoman any more, then yes, it surely is down to the voters who will get their chance to vote her out in November 2012 if they so wish to.

It isn't Bob the Coward's decision to make unless he has a vote in her constituency, in which case he can exercise his democratic franchise.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think one of the subtle messages she's tried to send by not resigning is the old, "you can't let the terrorists think they've won" message.

(and yes, I realize her attacker is not necessarily a terrorist)

By not resigning from her job through this horrible ordeal she is showing a strength of spirit and in some ways encouraging others to persevere through their difficulties in the hope of finding a better future.

Her one vote out of 435 means less than that larger message she can convey. I don't know if you saw the video of her return to congress, but it was one of the few uniting moments congress has seen these past few years. I don't fault her at all for abstaining this past year. I think her struggle for survival has said more than any vote on a bill ever could.

The implication here is that a congressman can be good at their job while simultaneously not regularly voting. I am not saying it is wrong. I understand that people feel that way. I disagree with it.

 

[Bri]

The implication here is that a congressman can be good at their job while simultaneously not regularly voting. I am not saying it is wrong. I understand that people feel that way. I disagree with it.

For a politician, they only have to be better than the alternative. Since the likely replacement would be from the other party, it's possible that her constituents would want her to stay even if she doesn't vote.

Similarly, I suspect that the politics of some of those arguing that she should step down has something to do with their opinion.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No kidding? It's like you and Joe are assembling a confederacy of fools. That's why I asked which mission, because according to this article, he quit.

Cain: Didn't he retire to take care of her?
Ari Fleischer B.S.: No. He flew a space shuttle mission.

No, he retired. Astronauts spend an obscene amount of time preparing for a mission, but after it was complete, he quit.

I think it's a misunderstanding as to what you meant by "Didn't he retire to take care of her?" In the context of the discussion of whether she should retire immediately, I understood that to be asking if he retired immediately when she got shot. I assumed you were comparing his retirement to her staying in her job.

So yes, he did retire, but it was nearly a year after she was shot. What's your point if it wasn't to compare his retiring to her staying in her job?

-Bri

 

[varwoche]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe I am. I believe that every statement you've made linking Jesse Kelly's campaign rhetoric to Loughner's shooting could have been said about the neighbor's dog and Berkowitz or Jodie Foster and Hinkley.

You repeatedly framed my speculative challenge of Newtons Bit's positive claim as if I had made a positive claim, despite that I repeatedly qualified my words so as not to make a positive claim. Pay better attention please.

Again, what does that mean? I realize you're carefully not coming out and saying that Jesse Kelly is somehow responsible for Loughner's action, but what exactly are you saying about the relationship between the two?

It's possible that Loughner was influenced by the political rhetoric. And even if he wasn't, the fact that it's possible for mentally disturbed people to be influenced by violent rhetoric is one of the things that makes that rhetoric irresponsible.

 

[varwoche]

I agree on both points. I only used the two examples of both sides of the spectrum to show where political rhetoric actually did have a provable effect in contrast to this one where there is no evidence or even an indication that political rhetoric was a factor.

I repeat, I have little doubt that Loughner's psychosis is the primary driver of his behavior, by far and away.

Notwithstanding, this absolute statement is ill-informed, flat out goofy actually. The act itself stands as evidence after all, plus other tidbits such as his distress over non English speakers. It may not be weighty evidence, but it's evidence.

 

[Tricky]

Let me make it clear. If she were my representative I would be calling for her to step aside and endorse her replacement (who would most likely be a shoe-in no matter who they were). But she's not and it's not my call to make.

That would make sense if it were obviously the case, but it is not. This is Arizona we're talking about, and it is increasingly in the grip of right-wing lunatics. Including the governor, who would likely make a temporary appointment. That appointee, as an incumbant, would then have enormous power in the next election.

I seriously doubt Giffords will run again and she, or her appointed designees, will support a like-minded candidate. That candidate will have an advantage, but it is no sure thing.

 

[Cain]

Let me make it clear. If she were my representative I would be calling for her to step aside and endorse her replacement (who would most likely be a shoe-in no matter who they were). But she's not and it's not my call to make.

I wouldn't want it any other way really. Her job is only for 2 years at a time and if she can't campaign her opponents will hammer her over it using essentially the same logic that you are using and rightfully so. If she gets elected then her constituents will get the representation that they deserve (meaning essentially none).

And I don't disagree -- except to say, I think she should step down regardless of whether or not she's my representative. The problem, or so it seems, is that even floating the idea gets met with kneejerk resistance. BobTheCowardWhoAssassinatedJames did not exactly put a delicate touch on his argument, but he still had a point that threatened to get lost amidst personal denunciations: "I am a firm believer that a good representative in her position should have resigned."

Tricky responding to the above comment:

That would make sense if it were obviously the case, but it is not. This is Arizona we're talking about, and it is increasingly in the grip of right-wing lunatics. Including the governor, who would likely make a temporary appointment. That appointee, as an incumbant, would then have enormous power in the next election.

I seriously doubt Giffords will run again and she, or her appointed designees, will support a like-minded candidate. That candidate will have an advantage, but it is no sure thing.

Now this is playing politics. I bet you're the kind of person who registers Republican because you live in a red state. When Kerry ran for the Presidency, Massachusetts Democrats changed their state law from a governor appointing replacement Senators to an election. Certainly this had nothing to do with the fact they had a Republican governor at the time. Later, as mentioned up thread, Kennedy died, and a Republican won his seat (while at that time MA had a Democratic governor). This is the kind of stuff that ought to bite people in the ass.

Bri:

So yes, he did retire, but it was nearly a year after she was shot. What's your point if it wasn't to compare his retiring to her staying in her job?

Stop being ridiculous. I should not have to bother explicating the differences here -- announcing retirement a couple weeks after his mission, the fact that able-bodied draw down their responsibilities for successors, and so on. No, he did not immediately quit his job... it's not like he was shot in the head or anything.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's like you and Joe are assembling a confederacy of fools.

I request you take back this bit of name-calling.

I gave a direct answer to the question, "What mission?"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You repeatedly framed my speculative challenge of Newtons Bit's positive claim as if I had made a positive claim, despite that I repeatedly qualified my words so as not to make a positive claim. Pay better attention please.

I think you're simply trying to weasel out of a positive claim by making insinuating arguments.

Do you similarly claim that insanity was only the primary cause of Berkowitz's murders? Hinkley's?

It's possible that Loughner was influenced by the political rhetoric.

For about the third time, what does that mean? It's possible that Loughner was influenced by his breakfast cereal. No one is arguing that Loughner's delusions don't incorporate things he sees and hears from the real world. They just bear no reasonable or rational connection.

And even if he wasn't, the fact that it's possible for mentally disturbed people to be influenced by violent rhetoric is one of the things that makes that rhetoric irresponsible.

I agree that kind of rhetoric is bad, but it's bad because it messes up political discourse, not because people who engage in it are somehow responsible for the actions of mentally ill people.

And if you're not implying that there is some level of responsibility, what exactly does "irresponsible" mean? What responsibility are people who engage in inflammatory rhetoric ducking? If you're only claiming that they're ducking a responsibility to conduct rational political discourse, I agree. But they have no responsibility to consider how their remarks might be misconstrued by a mentally ill person.

They no more have that responsibility than Jodie Foster has a responsibility to consider how her public image might influence a mentally ill person.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For a politician, they only have to be better than the alternative. Since the likely replacement would be from the other party, it's possible that her constituents would want her to stay even if she doesn't vote.

Similarly, I suspect that the politics of some of those arguing that she should step down has something to do with their opinion.

Good observations.

I think people who use the voting record alone are using an extremely naive (or partisan) definition of the job of a representative.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I don't disagree -- except to say, I think she should step down regardless of whether or not she's my representative. The problem, or so it seems, is that even floating the idea gets met with kneejerk resistance.

That's just poisoning the well. How do you know that resistance to the notion that a disabled person should retire from a job she would like to keep (and that her party would like her to keep) is not a well-thought out and reasoned position?

Are you at all familiar with the ADA and the widespread and historied movement that led to it? For many of us, this is not the first time we've considered the idea suggested. The speed of our response is not evidence that it's a "kneejerk" response.