That’s Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, fighting the fearmongering designed to cut Social Security benefits. Throughout this Congress, Grijalva hasn’t been afraid to speak out, even calling for a boycott of his own state after the legislature passed and the Governor signed a draconian immigration law that a federal judge eventually ruled partially unconstitutional.
But the fellow Democrat in the adjacent district serving Tucson, Gabrielle Giffords, has now attacked Grijalva’s position – triangulating against a progressive in an attempt to gain votes in November. Howie Klein has obtained the spot, running in Grijalva’s district in Tucson as well as Giffords’, lashes out at “these groups” who would threaten a boycott of Arizona over SB1070. While she doesn’t mention Grijalva by name, given the attention paid to him on this issue, it’s clear who Giffords is citing. Howie continues:
Giffords is looking like the point of the Blue Dog spear being thrust into the House progressive infrastructure. As we pointed out over the weekend, despite Pelosi’s efforts to tamp it down, the Blue Dogs are going on the warpath against progressive Democrats, using Henry Waxman’s interview with The Hill as an excuse. One thing we can always be sure of inside the Democratic Caucus– well, two, actually: Blue Dogs will always put self-preservation above the party’s principles, and the DCCC will do whatever it can to help them get re-elected [...]
We hear that other campaigns, pollsters, donors and politicians joined Grijalva’s staff in futile attempts to show Giffords the obvious– Democrats using other Democrats as punching bags is bad news for everyone. And when DCCC leaders, such as Vice Chair Wasserman Schultz, were approached with the argument that Giffords should not run the ad for obvious reasons, the argument fell on deaf ears. (Instead, they’re rewarding her behavior with close to a million dollars in independent expenditures.) It’s bad enough when so-called Democrats habitually vote against our agenda to save their seats, often with DCCC prompting. Now they’re spending Democratic money to hurt real Democrats to save their seats.
I cannot confirm that the DCCC played any role in trying to persuade Giffords to stop running this – it’s a Giffords ad, and she has full authority to run it. But it’s undeniable that DCCC money will find its way to Giffords in the fall – in fact, it already has, reserving air time for her for the end of the campaign. So their money is going to someone with the judgment to throw one of her Democratic colleagues under the bus and basically run ads against him in his own district.
Grijalva has personally responded to this with a diary at Daily Kos:
My call for action is now being used against me in an ad buy potentially totaling $350,000 in a district adjacent to my own in Southern Arizona. The incumbent Blue Dog Democrat, Gabrielle Giffords, says in the ad that she “holds those groups personally responsible for damaging the economy of Arizona” — not the governor who signed the law for political purposes, not the legislature that introduced and approved it, but the people who took a stand when it counted most.
Democratic operatives always wriggle out of this by saying that the object of their ire, typically a progressive, comes from a “safe seat” and doesn’t have to worry about voters. I guess that means that Democrats like Gabrielle Giffords, who in 2006 said that comprehensive immigration reform was a moral obligation, don’t have to worry about their principles. Giffords has been a leading advocate for the “border security first” approach which won the day in Congress this month, effectively accepting the false right-wing argument that the border is out of control and lawless.
And now, she’s attacking her own colleague with advertising on his turf. And soon, everyone who gives money to the DCCC will reward her for it.




5 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Ignore her. Fighting with her just make her look better in the eyes of swing voters.
Blue Dogs are all about monetizing immigration. They want as many troops and sensors and walls as possible. I’m sure she would vote a for decent comprehensive immigration bill as long as it didn’t cost her district money.
I sent him some money today. But he needs help with his communicating. The video angle makes him look like a garden gnome. His head is poking up above the frame, the reflection of light from the polished wood is distracting. And it’s too long. He should do one question and give a succinct answer, maybe in response to a prop, like a real person asking a question at an eveent, or a constituent letter. It’s dull as dirt.
David,
My thanks for posting this thread.
Being from Arizona, I have been highly supportive of the “boycott of Arizona” and for obvious reasons. When the state legislature passed SB 1070 and it’s companion legislation, HB 2281, I knew then that Giffords would come down on her fellow Democrats. And here’s why!
The majority of white Democrats in Arizona are, for all intent and purpose, enamored with the arch-conservatives and who are publicly represented by Brewer, Pearce and Kavanaugh. Thus, these “arch-conservative” Democrats have been hiding in plain sight and carry the label for being Blue Dogs. As such, there is no “centrist” or “Moderate-ness” in them. However, with the now toxic environment, and with the Spanish-speaking community, pissed to the point of anger, Giffords will be deemed a “no longer” Democrat, and regardless of party affiliation. And it’s my expectation that her anticipated “alternative model” is to cross the aisle and party with the Republicans after the 112th Session is convened in January.
Now, she may survive this election cycle, but in 2012, she will have some serious Democratic opposition, and thusly, she will return to her former profession, the television broadcasting biz. And obviously the “geezer-viagra” has rubbed off on her and to the point where her brain cells have lost their “collision-jumping” skill set. Consequently, good riddance to this camouflaged arch-conservative.
Jaango
Why is he so upset now? AZ Dems opposed the boycott from the beginning. The AG/Dem nominee for Governor Terry Goddard opposed it and even demanded Grijalva drop the boycott. Reps Kirkpatrick and Giffords opposed the boycott. The state party’s executive director *and former Grijalva staffer* Luis Heredia wrote two HuffPo piece called “Boycott? No, Let’s Win In Arizona” and “Boycott Brewer, Not Arizona.” They state party even ran a whole fundraising campaign based on the “Boycott Brewer, Not Arizona” theme.
Let’s take a “hard look” from the perspective of the Progressive versus the Non-Progressive?
Arizona has 7 members in the House and 5 are Democrats. And of these 5 members, 2 are considered Progessive. Thus, Grijalva and Pastor, are the Progressives and both are Hispanics. In contrast, Mitchell, Giffords and Kirpatrick are opposed to the Boycott of Arizona.
And from the voter registration stats, Republicans out number Independents and Independents out number the Democrats. And that makes the Democratic State Party a virtual non-entity for Democratic politics, and that makes Heredia, a potential stellar operative for the Chamber of Commerce. He has a great future ahead of him. Or until the arch-conservatives back the bus over him once, twice or thrice and out of their sheer joy.
And since Hispanics and Native Americans are the “backbone” of the Progressive Cause in Arizona, the three Democratic House Members are unwilling to address the “concerns” that Hispanics have to address for themselves despite this opposition posed by the majority of white Democrats. For Hispanics and Native Americans, we understand where the Republicans are from and where their intending to go. It’s this majority of white Democrats who are busy milling around the arch-conservative in the vain hope that the scraps of the Arch-Conservative Feast will fall from the table, and become available for wealth accumulation. In the meantime, one of ten homes are either facing foreclouse or are in default. And its these white Democrats that are being stripped of their camuouflage for having been long time arch-conservatives, albeit, well hidden.
Jaango