That's the Democratic Congresswoman from Arizona in the center.
Ethics Alarms first stated that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was seriously disabled and needed to resign from the house on January 17, 2011. I wrote:
“Almost no medical experts foresee a woman with such massive head injuries being able to return to work within a year, if she can return at all. She only has a two-year term. Is it fair to the people of Arizona, not to mention the country, to have a member of Congress who is unable to work during the days ahead, which are critical to the nation on so many fronts?”
Although the answer to this question was obvious at the time, Rep. Giffords did not resign. I returned to the topic in March, June, September and November, but not only did the Giffords camp and Democrats continue to ignore the issue, the media largely did as well. Never mind that during a contentious and important year of critical legislative issues, one Congressional District in Arizona was essentially unrepresented.
Today, finally, Rep. Giffords announced that she had resigned, more than a year after being shot in the head. Her friend, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, told the press that her friend’s recovery was likely to take years, not months. WOW! That’s a bulletin! Who had any idea that the Congresswoman was that seriously injured?
Oh, how about “everybody”?
I hesitate to blame Giffords herself, because I have no idea what her cognitive and emotional state is, and one of the reasons she needed to resign is that people with serious brain injuries tend to have impaired judgment. I do blame the Democrats for cynically keeping her in her seat as long as possible to avoid having to cope with that dreaded problem, democracy. Giffords was barely re-elected in 2010; the Democrats kept up the charade that she was on her way back, despite unanimous medical opinions that this was all-but-impossible, for half of her term, preferring a non-functioning place-holder rather than risk losing the seat. It was a perfect, if ethically indefensible, bit of politics. No Republican, journalist, or certainly Democrat would dare questioning Giffords, because, as we all know, in America the welfare and feelings of one courageous woman is more important than the welfare of the nation.
Such priorities, I feel I should mention, represent not ethics, but the opposite of ethics.
I congratulate Rep. Giffords for finally behaving responsibly and fairly, but the needlessly lost year matters. It is nothing to be proud of.
Ethics Alarms 
>”No Republican, journalist, or certainly Democrat would dare questioning Giffords, because, as we all know, in America the welfare and feelings of one courageous woman is more important than the welfare of the nation.”
Could we be dealing with “The return of the Compassion Bullies” you brought to or attention this past November?
Jack, who are you mad at here? Giffords herself or the party? I am confused.
Didn’t think about it until I read Mike’s comment. Is it the media?
Why do you think I’m “mad”? I’m not angry—it’s nothing to me. It’s wrong, that’;s all. If I got mad about every time someone was unethical in politics, I’d go crazy.
I don’t really know how accountable Giffords is. If she was able to comprehend her situation and act on it, then she is responsible. If she was vulnerable and not so able, then it is her advisors and the party. Bottom line: she should have resigned last January.
And of course the media should have been demanding it all along. I don’t know how many other blogs called for her resignation like I have, but it’s not many.
Mad, not mad…. I wasn’t being literal and you got my drift. Thanks for the clarification, it helped.
Well, her handlers were simply following the historical example of Pitt the Younger (delaying the Regency vote while George III went mad) and, as you said in your post a year ago, the Woodrow Wilson administration.
Excellent!
For anyone who may take offense at the “notion” that Gifford, or those responsible for making decisions for her during whatever period of time she may have been incapable of making decisions for herself, did not have an obligation to immediately resign from office due to her inability to perform her duties for fear being labeled politically incorrect or insensitive I say this:
HORSE—-!!!! I’ve been a life-long liberal (though I’m not voting to re-elect Obama) and I think she should have immediately resigned, even if it meant a Republican took her place. If you can’t do the job, even due to an illness or disability, temporary or permanent, for an extended period of time … you can’t do the job. Man (or lady) up! I’m certainly NOT prejudiced against the handicapped – I’m raising a profoundly disabled child and expect the world to treat her with respect. But I don’t expect anyone to give her a job she is clearly incapable of performing due to her disabilities. That would be absurd. I also suffered a traumatic brain injury. I was lucky. I’ve made a great recovery and hope to be able to go back to work soon. I would not have expected to reserve a seat in Washington for the period of time it took me to be able to recover my cognitive abilities. Oh – and by the way – though most of my cognitive abilities returned within months, I still have word retrieval issues and other side effects, am just now ready to think about returning to work, my injury happened over 2 years ago – and I didn’t have the emotional trauma of being shot in the head by a lunatic! I love this country, with all its flaws. There are too many important things to be done to have a seat sit empty for many months at a time. Like I said … man (or woman) up!
Traumatic brain injuries are very difficult, and the doctors and media did us no favors by soft-peddling what Giffords faces. I knew enough about it—you know much more—to know that all the happy talk about Giffords returning to work was misinformation from the start, and you are 100% right. I wish more recovering head injury sufferers had spoken up. Thanks so much for the perspective.
I dont understand why it was left in her hands to decide. Why isnt there a proccess in place to insure that when this happens they are replaced?
I sincerely hope it was not in her hands. It seems outrageous to me that anyone would expect someone shot in the head to make any decision in a matter of months, nevermind days. I hope it was others that made and take responsibility for the bad decision. Someone should have resigned for her because from what I read, she didn’t make another significant public appearance until May and then it was difficult for her to communicate. Since the decision should have been made way before May, I am going to assume she would not have been capable herself. You are right Bill, there needs to be a process. One that doesn’t rely on someone shot in the head during an incident where several people were killed DECIDING not to go to work that day… or even that year! I really, really hope that she was concentrating on her recovery in each moment and that she was oblivious to the bafoons around her screwing up on a daily basis.
Then there is always the arguement that if she was capable of making that decision, she was also capable of serving in the seat. But I won’t go there because I believe it is unreasonable to expect her to make the decision so by default, I believe she was incapable of serving during recovery.
Didn’t she just vest in her pension this month? I think that’s the real reason she waited until now to resign.
1. Is that true about her pension vesting?
2. How did you become so cynical at such a young age?
Read it here:
http://urbangrounds.com/2012/01/gabby-giffords-resigns/
I don’t know if I’m really cynical, I just don’t trust politicians. But of course, I can’t blame her…I’d probably wait to vest in my pension too.
There’s also pension info here:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm