Worst voting record in the house, this is heinous

[Crossbow]

I was thinking today about the representatives and voting. I thought about who abstains from voting and how often. Is voting on legislation a fundamental role? Can a representative transcend that requirement?

I submit to you, representative Giffords's 2011 voting record.


Time Period Number of Votes Missed Votes Missed Percent
2011-Q1 212 201 94.8%
2011-Q2 281 281 100%
2011-Q3 247 246 99.6%
2011-Q4 208 208 100%

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=412188&tab=votes

Well, if you really feel so strongly about the matter, then I suggest that you see about getting her impeached.

Otherwise, you will just have to deal with the fact the that the results of her last election are more important that your personal opinion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

I took it to mean that she couldn't possibly do her job when her husband had to quit his in order to take care of her. I would argue points already raised (a naive idea of what her job is, and willfully ignoring the relative importance of keeping her job compared to keeping his job), plus the fact that that argument could as easily cut the other way: he quit his job to help her keep hers.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The OP could be the sickest thing I've ever read at JREF forums.

Either you've never seen any of my posts, or I'm not trying hard enough.

 

[Bri]

I took it to mean that she couldn't possibly do her job when her husband had to quit his in order to take care of her.

That's what I thought too, which is why I pointed out that her husband didn't have to quit his job in order to take care of her. He retired nearly a year later. Also, other sources indicate that he didn't retire in order to take care of her, but to spend time with her and to write a memoir with her.

I would argue points already raised (a naive idea of what her job is, and willfully ignoring the relative importance of keeping her job compared to keeping his job), plus the fact that that argument could as easily cut the other way: he quit his job to help her keep hers.

Agreed. In addition, it can be argued that merely maintaining her position (and thus keeping a Republican from being appointed her seat) is part of her job and her obligation to her constituents!

-Bri

 

[varwoche]

delete - I misread you Joe, in case you already saw my rebuttal

 

[varwoche]

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

From your perspective, this indeed is possible. Maybe I actually blame the rhetoric, but I'm too chicken to come out and say it.

On the other hand, maybe I mean precisely what I've written.

 

[Spindrift]

I suppose they could just wheel her in and tell her what to vote like they did with Strom Thurmond.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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.

Nobody has shown any evidence that the political rhetoric being used by some was a factor. I've only seen speculation (which is not evidence). If you have some evidence that it was a factor then please show it here.

What we do know as fact is that statements from everyone who knew the guy all are consistent on the point that he didn't listen to right wing radio, use right-wing rhetoric or otherwise give any indication that he was otherwise influenced by right wing propaganda. When his belongings were searched there was no right wing books, pamphlets or other media to link him to the right wing. He had admitted in the past to taking hallucinogenic drugs (not exactly a right wing trait). Apparently he disliked Giffords because she was a Blue Dog Democrat and he even called her "Fake" at one point which sounds to me like he thought that she wasn't Democrat enough, which certainly isn't what someone overly influenced by right wing rhetoric might say. He absolutely hated Bush, another indication that he wasn't a fan of the right wing. He also was registered and voted as an Independent, again not indicative that he was influenced by the right wing.

No evidence means just what I said, no evidence. If anything the guy leaned more towards the left wing than the right but you don't see people here accusing the left of creating such a monster do you?

The fact that he was distressed over non-english speakers is not an indication of anything other than he was distressed over non-english speakers unless you are saying that there is nobody on the left who holds the same opinion. Just like there are people on the right who are (for an example) pro-choice there are people on the left who agree with some of the right wings planks.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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.

While saying someone who she endorsed was going to be a shoe-in might have been a bit of an exaggeration on my part I think that because of the situation that she is in that the sympathy vote would put whoever she picked well over the top. Of course that's just an opinion but I believe that it's a valid one. I also am of the opinion that waiting until her term is up and not running will tick a lot of people off as to why did she wait so long and keep them under represented if she had no intention of running again. That might lead to a much closer election.

Of course this is all supposition right now on both of our parts and time will tell but regardless of anything else some of it will never be provable because only one of the possible scenarios will happen (she resigns before her term is up, she doesn't run again or she does run again).

 

[AlBell]

Dear Sam,

Please prove the claim insinuated in your posting, which is that the insanely violent tea-party rhetoric, and the repeated shouting of 'second amendment remedies' had nothing to do with this.

Until you can show same, all you can do is try to shift the burden.

Prove a negative? You've been here longer than that.

 

[applecorped]

Her head's just not in the job anymore.

 

[fishbob]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400440&tab=votes

No, this is heinous. And nobody ever shot Don Young in the head, not so's you could tell anyway.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400440&tab=votes

No, this is heinous. And nobody ever shot Don Young in the head, not so's you could tell anyway.

I notice that you picked the THIRD worse example at 14% (a republican) and not the SECOND worse record at 17% (a democrat).

Nope, no bias showing there... not at all. That's ok. I'll take care of that for you.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400080&tab=votes

And go one more by showing all of the worse offenders (bottom of the page).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/repstats.xpd

 

[BobTheCoward]

Her head's just not in the job anymore.

She will never be the head of a major corporation...

 

[fishbob]

I notice that you picked the THIRD worse example at 14% (a republican) and not the SECOND worse record at 17% (a democrat).

Nope, no bias showing there... not at all. That's ok. I'll take care of that for you.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400080&tab=votes

And go one more by showing all of the worse offenders (bottom of the page).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/repstats.xpd

Partisan paranoia run amok?

I picked on Don because he is MY congress critter.
I have no doubt that #2 is worse - as long as he hasn't been shot in the head.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Partisan paranoia run amok?

I picked on Don because he is MY congress critter.
I have no doubt that #2 is worse - as long as he hasn't been shot in the head.

You didn't mention that he was your Representative and you didn't point out that as your Rep he was the third worse following Conyers. Pardon me for noticing your omissions. I'm clearly not a mind reader because if I were I'd be a million dollars richer right now.

 

[Cain]

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

As you could not muster a confederacy I will refer to you guys as a tag team.

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

My question was "What Mission are you talking about?" And then I posted an article that mentioned Endeavor. I thought this was a not-so-subtle hint that I was aware of that mission. Instead one of you geniuses said something like "from your own source." Two years ago it would have merited a picture of the Captain of the Starship Enterprise.

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

Maybe so. A representative could also work back rooms, push their agenda in the public sphere, propose legislation -- she can do lots of things to change hearts and minds. A politician convalescing from a head wound, however, probably is not burning the midnight oil doing the people's work. Or maybe that's another unfounded assumption on my part.

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?

This is rich. And inane. I'll chock it up to yet another poster parroting language he does not understand. By all means take me through what a possibly "well-thought out and reasoned position" might resemble. As I recall she struggled to understand questions from the dazzling mind of Diane Sawyer.

Are you at all familiar with the ADA and the widespread and historied movement that led to it?

Vaguely.

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.

Look up-thread. There was a pile-on.

I took it to mean that she couldn't possibly do her job when her husband had to quit his in order to take care of her. I would argue points already raised (a naive idea of what her job is, and willfully ignoring the relative importance of keeping her job compared to keeping his job), plus the fact that that argument could as easily cut the other way: he quit his job to help her keep hers.

You two deserve each other. I intended it to mean that this event was so dramatic that a spouse quit his job in order to care for the victim. If you think this "could as easily" mean he retired so she would not have to then provide a quote from Kelly stating something to that effect. I do not suspect it would be as difficult for me to find something about him quitting to be "by her side," since that's the language he used in his statement to the media. But please, continue to speculate... Why on earth would he retire to be with his family since he could just as easily be angling to help his wife keep her job?

 

[Bri]

I intended it to mean that this event was so dramatic that a spouse quit his job in order to care for the victim.

Except, as I pointed out, he didn't quit his job until nearly a year later. No doubt getting shot in the head is a "dramatic" event, but he apparently didn't immediately quit his job to take care of her.

If you think this "could as easily" mean he retired so she would not have to then provide a quote from Kelly stating something to that effect. I do not suspect it would be as difficult for me to find something about him quitting to be "by her side," since that's the language he used in his statement to the media. But please, continue to speculate... Why on earth would he retire to be with his family since he could just as easily be angling to help his wife keep her job?

According to several sources, he quit his job to spend time with his wife and daughters, and to write a memoir with his wife.

-Bri

 

[jj]

Prove a negative? You've been here longer than that.

HE's the one who claimed it, so he can stop dodging.

 

[Bri]

HE's the one who claimed it, so he can stop dodging.

Sam.I.Am didn't make a positive claim in the post to which you were responding:

I see that some people seem to have forgotten that the left-wing hysteria and finger pointing over the cause of the shooting was completely unfounded in fact or evidence and are trying to do it again.​

He said that the claim that the shooter was a right-winger inflamed by political rhetoric was unfounded and not supported by evidence. Although it would be incumbent upon those who made those claims to prove it, Sam.I.Am went the extra mile and posted evidence to the contrary.

In addition, he responded directly to your request three posts after yours. I wouldn't call that "dodging."

-Bri