Grijalva's double-dealing ...

I, for one, will not vote for Raul Grijalva again.

Grijalva Statement Opposing the Bill He Voted For Yesterday

Fooled again. There's obviously no point in supporting any of these creeps.

Well, don't expect courage from Gabrielle Giffords, Repug in Dem clothing ...

Arizona continues to embarrass: Now we have death threats against Raul Grijalva, one of the few Democratic Reps who usually appears to actually be a Democrat.

Pueblo Politics: Grijalva closes office because of death threats

Unlike Gabrielle Giffords who just pretends to be a Dem like most of the critters calling themselves Dems who infest the US House and Senate.

Pueblo Politics: Giffords says no to boycott

So which is it, Gabrielle? Lack of courage or lack of convictions?

I've got to hand it to Raul Grijalva ...

... he hasn't caved to the those (including Krugman) who think the indefensible Senate's protect-the-future-profits-of-the-'health'-insurance-industry bill should be passed now, right now, don't think about it further, just do what we say, right now. After all it can be fixed (by the same morons who can't produce anything halfway acceptable should their very lives depend on it) later. Sort-a-like Medicare Part D was fixed -- oh, but it hasn't been fixed, has it?

It takes guts, which so few in Congress have, to keep standing up for what it right as other Democrats, like Diane Watson of California, get down in the mud and slither towards their corporate paymasters.

I get email from the Prez. Well not really ...

Mitch Stewart, BarackObama.com" writes:

Call your representatives, and tell whoever answers where you are from and that you watched the President's address.

Then tell them that you want your representatives to support the President's plan, ask them where they stand -- and thank them if they already clearly support it.

Don't forget to click here to let us know what they said.

Why would I respond to a request to ask those Reps and Senators from Arizona who theoretically represent me to support Obama's plan when I don't really know what his plan is other than an awareness from past and current practices that he favors corporation over people and the rich over the majority of Americans.

Obama has a meeting with Reid and Pelosi. Afterwards Obama continues to increase his rhetoric supporting a 'public option' and Pelosi starts to wind down her once absolute support for the public option. Obama, as far as I can see still has secret deals with Robber Baron corporations already killing people over their health needs. Though Obama appears verbally to support a 'public option' he still does not appear to support the progressive who are working for it nor has he pressured the Blue Curs to cooperate. So why would I call Grijalva with Obama's message when he appears to be doing exactly what I prefer and the Prez is most likely working against both Grijalva and me.

As for McCain and Killer Kyl, we already know they only support corporations and the rich and look forward to the continued peon-ization of America. It's ironic, really, that the insurance control of health care without the balancing presence of a strong public option would support the goals of McCain and Kyl. But since it's a stupid Dem Prez doing the corporate bidding, instead of themselves, they will not support the insurance controlled legislation that will most likely pass without any public option and they will even use the horror of such legislation to help them improve their electoral chance. Stupid Dems indeed.

This makes me uneasy ...

In another newsworthy tidbit, Grijalva says Obama signaled that discussions about the public option would continue even after his big speech before a joint session of Congress next week. That may be an indication that Obama won’t be mentioning the public option in his speech, but doesn’t want liberals to despair at that prospect.

I don't know who is thinking that Obama wants 'liberals' to keep from despairing just because he's throwing over the public option. Is it Grijalva or the writer (Greg Sargent)? If it's Sargent then he's just making things up. If it's Grijalva describing how Obama is attempting to con them, then I hope Grijalva and the rest of his group actually have some guts. Something that Obama does not have. Obama's idea of a negotiation and leadership seems to be to make sure nothing changes.

It's so frustrating to see Obama give everything in the store (not to mention the building) away. Does he think they will respect him in the morning? If so, he's a fool. They will continue to pick him apart. The weaker he acts the more fun they will have.
--------------

ADDED:

Letter to Obama from Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey ...

Dear President Obama:

Thank you for continuing to work with Members of Congress to draft a health reform bill that will provide the real health care reform this country needs.

We look forward to meeting with you regarding retaining a robust public option in any final health reform bill and request that that meeting take place as soon as possible.

Public opinion polls continue to show that a majority of Americans want the choice ofa robust public plan and we stand in solidarity with them. We continue to support the robust public option that was reported out of the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor and will not vote for a weakened bill on the House Floor or returning from a Conference with the Senate.

Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates-is unacceptable. A plan with negotiated rates would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal ofproviding choice and competition to keep rates down. The public plan with set rates saves $75 billion, which could be lost ifrates are negotiated with providers. Further, this public option must be available immediately and must not be contingent upon any trigger.

Mr. President, the need for reform is urgent. Every day, 14,000 Americans lose their health care coverage. We must have health care reform that will effectively bring down costs and significantly expand access. A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs. We cannot vote for anything less.

We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the importance of your support for a robust public plan, which we encourage you to reiterate in your address to the Joint Session of Congress on Wednesday.

Lynn Woolsey
Raul Grijalva

Az Reps Grijalva and Giffords vote NO on $700 B giveaway ...

Here's what the Az Daily Star reports that Dem Congress Critters Grijalva and Gifford say about their 'no' vote on the latest Bush Co money grab.

Reps. Giffords, Grijalva explain vote against bailout

[Grijalva's position appears to have been taken from the statement on his official web site]

Giffords position is reported as coming from a spokesman via e-mail:
“She [Gabrielle Giffords] believes action is needed to address the status of the financial markets but she wasn't convinced that this bill was the right one and thinks it was rushed.”

Here's Grijalva's statement as it appears on his web site:

Grijalva Votes to Defeat Bailout

Monday September 29, 2008 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva released a statement regarding his vote against the Bush-Paulson financial bill.

“I am not in disagreement that there is a financial crisis in our country. Daily the headlines deliver news of another bank in crisis.

“I am in disagreement of a proposal that is rushed and more importantly does not advocate equally for main street and strong protections for working families.

[ ... ]

Giffords web site did not connect for some reason. Here's the address: http://giffords.house.gov/

Raul Grijalva voted against the FISA abomination also. Giffords voted for the FISA abomination.

Representative Raul Grijalva acts to protect the Grand Canyon ...

“We cannot wait while uranium mining claims continue to be filed and the Bush Administration continues to use the exclusionary clause to allow uranium mining exploration and eventual mining operations within public lands in close proximity to the Grand Canyon National Park.”

Of course with an administration that ignores all but their corporation-centered desires and a Democratic Congress that let's them get away with it and even condones it as we've seen in the FISA abomination, it's not clear whether these types of actions mean much.

Unless Congress stands up for themselves as an equal branch of the government they will never have the power to get anything done that the administrative branch isn't willing to do. I thought we helped the Democrats to a majority in order to get some of that balance between the three branches back. Obviously, at a minimum, I didn't understand the corruption of the Democratic leadership. They have no intention of doing their job.

Caving now may seem like a good strategy to the Obama campaign and the more unthinking of his followers, but given the dynamics we've seen in the last couple decades, where a McCain presidency will be given a free pass by the media, an Obama presidency will most likey encounter the opposite treatment. And since the Democratic majority has just demonstrated that they will kowtow to the will of the corporate-controlled media and their individual corporate sponsors (because that's really who they are bowing to, even if the media is doing Bush' bidding, it's the media that amplifies the administration propaganda and fear tactics). Since most likely Obama would become the media's target, as did President Clinton, we would soon see cooperation between the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress aimed at a President Obama. After all Democrats just showed they cater to media and corporate pressure more than to either principles, the Constitution or the voters.

More of the Red Mind ...

This red-minded guy is talking about Representative Raul Grijalva:

Now, this congress critter involves himself in every little Mexican cause that comes down the pike, whether it's a legitimate issue or not. Illegals are his favorite--as long as they play the downtrodden victim card. He's involved himself in the Catalina protests. When he campaigns, he forgets he has white constituents in his district and panders solely to the illegals. He is truly the Mexican version of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. If it involves illegals, you can rest assured he's there to fan the flames--whether it's a legitimate issue or not, whether he has all the facts or not. He's there, facts be damned.

Certainly a sizable portion of Grijalva's constituency are of Mexican descent (because Republicans engineered this district so it would be so). As of the 2000 census 50.6% of Grijalva's district (Arizona Congressional District 7) describe themselves as Hispanic.

However what the red-minded don't appear to understand, or deliberately ignore, is that

1. only US citizens can vote for him, and
2. US citizens of Mexican descent do not all agree on the solutions to US immigration problems (same as those of us who are not of Mexican descent).

Believe me, our elected Democrats do NOT believe in Freedom of speech or thought ...

The bill calls for heightened scrutiny of people who believe, or might come to believe, in a violent ideology.

Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act by Lindsey Beyerstein -- The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act passed the House of Representatives on Oct. 23 by a vote of 404-6. The wide margin is indicative of a growing concern among U.S. authorities about the potential for so-called “homegrown terrorism” in the United States.

So called Democrats like Giffords and Grijalva voted for surveillance of people based on what they may come to believe. I suppose they will start to black list connections to the Internet next, based on what someone thinks you think or may come to think some day, perhaps, maybe.

And can you believe this: "Rep. Harman is careful to emphasize the language in the bill that states that the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts “shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.”" 'Our' Reps have learned nothing, absolutely NOTHING, in the past seven years. Idiots! Because they refuse do their job and ensure the structure and controls are in place to actually guarantee our constitutional rights they add meaningless words to their laws repeating what should already be manifest. We have rights. These right are already guaranteed in our Constitution. Our elected officials are ignoring and undermining these rights on a daily basis.

And then there's this:

The broad wording of the bill leaves open many questions. If homegrown terrorism is defined to include “intimidation” of the United States government or any segment of its population—could the Commission or the Center of Excellence task itself with investigating groups advocating boycotts, general strikes, or other forms of non-violent “intimidation”?

Could telling my Rep I will never vote for him again 'til Hell freezes over be considered intimidation? One person's negotiation will turn out to be another person's intimidation. Just one more excuse to arrest someone. They won't care if the arrest is overturned. Government officials will like the harassment value. And it's Democrats who created this monstrosity!

These representatives who hardly take our phone calls, who are likely to arrest us if we show anything other than a subservient attitude in their offices and send gibberish in reply to correspondence are in fact very afraid of us, wouldn't you say?

Here's the Border Reporter's take on the subject: FERTILIZER INDEED

Bullshit ...

US Congress approves Iraq war budget

BO: "With my vote today, I am saying to the president that enough is enough," Obama said later in a written statement.

I gave you, Barack Obama, the benefit of the doubt. But I don't believe a word you say now. You just played political games with this vote. You didn't try to influence the vote. You've avoided the issue. You are just trying to play both sides of the game. That is not the leadership we need in a president.

HC: Clinton said in her own statement: "I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation."

I've just made up my mind about you also, Hilary Cllinton. I will not support you. You are not really against this war or you are just so mealy mouthed that you can't say what you think. That is not the leadership we need in our next president. My opinion is that you would keep us in this war if you were elected.

And it's not just BO and HC. It's 99% of them. It's just too much to ask politicians to actually do the jobs they were elected to do, isn't it. No, they're either running for office or being paid off by corporations.

I do wish to state here that Raul Grijalva appears to be one of the 1% who actually work at being the people's representative. We need more, many more like Grijalva.

86 cowardly Democrats, two of them from Arizona, are now co-owners of Bush's war ...

Seems Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords voted for unlimited war on Bush's terms ...

Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor did the right thing and voted against a blank check for the child-king and monster-moron living in the White House.

I didn't know there were this many stupid Democrats after the lessons of the last election. The two Arizona Democrats who voted for the war are newly elected. What are they thinking?