The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch
Blog Categories: Politics | News | Music | Chow | Do This! | Media | TV | Arts and Culture | Snapshot | Cinema | Fun in General | Just Plain Dumb | more categories»
Monday, December 19, 2011
Politics / TV / News Mark Kelly on Arizona Week: Gabby's Decision on Reelection "Hinges on How Well She Can Do the Job"
Posted by Jim Nintzel on Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:25 AM
Michael Chihak of Arizona Public Media's Arizona Week got a lengthy interview with astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
Chihak reports:
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is speaking in full sentences now, says her husband, an improvement from a month ago when she uttered several phrases in a national television interview.Retired Navy Capt. Mark Kelly told Arizona Week in an interview at his suburban Houston home Thursday that the Democratic congresswoman from Tucson is still working to combine the sentences she is able to speak.
Asked if she is forming complete sentences, Kelly said, "Oh, yeah, absolutely. The hard part for her right now is stringing them together. But that's coming."
See more episodes of Arizona Week here.
Comments (20)
Showing 1-20 of 20
So we have gone from "toast" to "I want toast."
Meanwhile we are still unrepresented.
I sorry that she got shot, but life goes on.
like
dislike
Agreed. It's hideous what happened to Giffords back in January but, the 12 member super-congress came and went without the bulk of Tucson having representation in the house.
Now with the NDAA effectively trashing the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ammendments and the house vote on that coming up on Wednesday, Giffords isn't doing squat to stop this scrapping of the bill of rights.
We need someone representing us in DC capable of fighting to stop this train wreck, not someone that may or may not be able to communicate with subject verb agreement.
I know people don't like to hear the truth and want to think that it would be nice if Giffrds could return to Congress but, by having someone with severe brain damage representing (though that representation has been non-existant since January) us in congress we are crippling our interests in DC. If she doesn't resign, Giffords is doing a disservice to herself and, more importantly, to her constituents.
Oh please if you feel so strongly put your name behind it and start a recall petition and see what happens. What is that? Don't want to expose yourselves as the authors of heartless and illogical rants? Fine, then stop whining and zip it.
Sangria, and that's the point. Nobody wants to confront the reality of the situation.
Nobody on the right wants to start the recall because then they look like the big meanie being mean to the poor woman with brain damage.
Nobody on the left is willing to point out the fact that Giffords is physically unable do her job because nobody on the left has any integrity on this issue at all. They've been covering for Gabby since she was first elected to congress. She and Mark Kelly live in Houston where he has a job as an astronaut. They rent an apartment in Tucson to skirt the issue of whether or not she lives in the district, but even Kelly admits that he took Gabby "home" to Houston after the shooting.
For Giffords to resign that would require an act of integrity acknowledging the reality that we all face. Integrity isn't a characteristic Giffords demonstrated before the shooting, so why should anyone expect her to demonstrate that now?
I voted for Giffords in the last election. And I was horrified and saddened when she and the other people were shot. But now I think she should resign because unfortunately she is no longer able to do her job. As a practical matter, I no longer have a representave in the U.S. House of Representatives. Indeed, I haven't had one for almost an entire year now.
Gotta say: It's so weird how all these folks who want Gabby to resign lack the fortitude to sign their real names to the their posts. What are you all so ashamed of, that you have to hide behind anonymity, especially if you're going to lecture others on integrity?
Red Star doesn't want Giffords to resign and sees no reason why she should.
There seems to be *no* relevant precedent for this situation in modern USA (perhaps Jim Nintzel aka "Nintz" will research this and report back to us) and no lawful procedure other than recall...
As usual, a voice of reason from beloved Red Star!
@ reality of the situation
so you are perfectly ok being a heartless meanie but just don't want to look like one. got it.
Welcome to the planet Earth, "Nintz". Here on Earth, we have this thing called the World Wide Web, where millions of people post comments anonymously. I'm sorry you're having trouble getting used to that concept.
I'm quite familiar with the concept of anonymous comments, John Doe. I just don't take people seriously when they don't have the stones to stand behind what they say (with the exception of my friend Red Star). I'm sorry you have trouble getting used to that concept.
How ironic that the person in this thread who is complaining about anonymous comments is posting anonymous comments. Of course, I'm talking about "Nintz".
Seriously? You don't understand the difference between anonymity and a nickname? I've been writing for the Tucson Weekly for 20 years and appearing on TV and radio for 15. How much less anonymous can you get?
Clearly, there's nothing worthwhile for me in this conversation with a bunch of people I do not know and do not respect. Unless one of you finds the courage to sign your name to what you have to say, I'm done.
Arguments for anonymity on the internet:
1) I don't want to be stalked by some nutjob who disagrees with me and googles my house.
2) An argument is no less valid if the person is anon or not: see Genetic Fallacy.
There is a nutjob who posts here that posts his home phone and address.
Nutjobs are not confined to the anon category, and there are some reasonable anons.
IMO It is not as cut and dried as 'anonymity on the internet is always bad.'
...just wanted to note the delicious irony of someone anonymously 'disliking' my arguments for anonymity, ha!
Jim Nintzel has absolutely no way of knowing whether or not my real name is Bob Anderson. Nintzel's crusade for real names not only smells like the McCarthy era, but it is ultimately hopeless.
Bob, I suggest you look up the word "crusade." I don't think a few comments on the blog suggesting that people might find the courage to stand behind what they say qualifies as a crusade. If anything, it's the people who come here to claim that they must have anonymity or their lives will be ruined by nutjob stalkers fits the definition a bit better.
Merry Christmas!
"Nintz", the only thing you might possibly cause to happen here is that perhaps a few people will switch from using phony names that look like phony names to using phony names that look like real names -- which will cause you to be even more in the dark. That's because your desire for commenters to exhibit macho characteristics ("stones", "courage", etc.) is far less important to them than dealing with certain Googlers of their name, such as the boss who is deciding who to promote, the potential future employer, the current/potential customers of their small business or profession, the family member who they don't want to have another argument with, the possible stalker, the phone harasser, the hate-mail sender, the bully at school, etc. Speaking of bullies, as I witness your badgering of people simply because they want to be anonymous, you are starting to look like a bully to me.
Oh, and one other point: keep in mind that some commenters may not live in the USA. They may be in countries in which their political comments may cause them to be imprisoned, tortured or even executed. Perhaps you could a take a break from your obsession with machismo to consider such possible calamities.
Jim Nintzel, I think you have finally found your calling. You can be the founder and Executive Director of the J. Edgar Hoover Center For Investigating Political Commenters. If you hurry, I think the domain name youdonthavethestones.org is still available.
In the case, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the United States Supreme Court declared anonymous speech to be a constitutionally protected right. In fact, the Supreme Court virtually celebrated anonymous speech in its written decision in that case. Here is a quote from that decision: "Anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
Gabby Giffords does more for us just with her spirit than the GOP does in total. If you people think we need it to happen quicker then put your money where you are speaking from ( anal canal ) and do it yourself. Hang in there Gabby, Mark and supporters. She is better able to do the job in her current state of health than the do nothing Repubs. In there right now as they are SICK. In fact the Prez could get much more done if they would ALL just go home.
Supporter of Gabby.
Previously in the Range
-
You Win, Jill T. Nagamine
- May 21, 2012
-
You Should Read the Mad Men Power Rankings
- May 21, 2012
-
Shameless Self-Promotion: 'Weekly' Scribes Nab Five Awards in Arizona Press Club Contest
- May 20, 2012
- More »
Popular Content
- Buddha's Dog House Is Open (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
- You Win, Jill T. Nagamine (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
- Seeing Stars (Well, Eclipsed Sun) (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
- Here's What the Eclipse Looked Like, If That's Your Thing (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
- The Dragoon Brewing Co. Taproom Opens This Week (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
