Friday Night at Gabrielle Giffords’ Office

Here’s something you don’t usually see: hundreds of protesters gathered on a Friday night, in the rain for a political protest of a sitting congressman. OK, the rain actually broke long enough for the protesters to make their point (3 hours). I’m estimating that there were about 500-600 protesters over the course of the event.

Yet, no sign of Gabrielle Giffords whose office was the venue for the event. Lots of true patriots in attendance as well as several former elected officials, current elected officials and candidates in waiting.

I have to hand it to the Tucson Tea Party folks, they sure know how to throw a protest complete with T-shirts and excited and angry citizens.

Here is one of the interviews I shot of a young lady who was well spoken, not paid to be there and not a member of any union.


  1. You mean “whose office,” not “who’s office.”

    “Who’s” is a contraction meaning “who is”; thus, you’ve said “who is office.”

    “Whose” is the possessive relative pronoun for “who,” akin to “her” for “she” and to “his” for “he.”


    Why should I expect knowledge of grammar and spelling from people who think it is a good plan to bring an assault rifle to a site where people had gathered to greet the president of the United States?

  2. Jim Kaucher says

    Grayson’s arrogant dismissal of someone’s viewpoint based upon petty grammatical criticism is not a very good substitute for reasoned debate. But then, why should I expect anything else from someone who apparently does not know what a real assault rifle is.

    Anticipating Grayson’s response: the least sentence was intended as sarcasm, not hypocrisy.

  3. My bad on the grammatical who’s => whose. Thanks for the “nitpick” Richard. (corrected)

    On the other assertion, I never said it was a good idea to bring an assault rifle to a protest where POTUS is in the vicinity. You do know that that was a cheap publicity stunt by the Ernest Hancock variety of the Libertarian party here in Arizona? And yes, they were successful in hijacking the message of the protest which was supposed to be about health care and the overwhelming reach of the federal government.

    Back to the point of this post.

    Apparently, all the protesting by constituents of the fifth Congressional district has had an impact in prompting Gabrielle Giffords to finally conduct a full blown town hall meeting. That will be scheduled next Friday at Rincon High School.

    I’m willing to bet that there will be some angry citizens there but I also believe “our side” (for lack of a better generalization) will behave and not throw any pies or not damage cars in the parking lot.

  4. Tucson Vice says

    Jim, I know you won’t, but please can the false outrage. It isn’t convincing.

    There is no important distinction between an AR-15 and, for instance, an M16A2. A person can do every bit as much damage with one as he or she can with the other.

  5. Jim Kaucher says

    Actually, there is a big difference between a true “assault” weapon and a standard civilian AR-15: one is select fire and the other isn’t. That’s why M-16s are class III weapons and AR-15s are not.

    For what it’s worth, I thought it was a terrible idea for the guys to bring their rifles — or any openly carried weapons — to the protest.

  6. It certainly didn’t please Arthur Frommer. I just heard him on the radio all but call for a tourist boycott of Arizona. Certainly if you are against the current health proposals (whatever they are), this kind of action is a gift to people like me and President Obama.

    There is, for a lot of us, though I’m sure not you, a kind of scary feel in this kind of activity that’s reminiscent of the militia movement in the early years of the Clinton administration and the Oklahoma City bombing.

    I think it is incumbent on the more reasonable people opposing the Obama administration to denounce these people. There were a lot of nasty demonstrations against Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld over the Iraq war, but the people protesting didn’t carry weapons like these or feel it was a good idea.

    I worked as a high school intern in Sen. Robert Kennedy’s office in my last term of high school for a course called Problems in American Democracy. He was, of course, assassinated in early June 1968, two months after Martin Luther King Jr. and about five years after President Kennedy was shot dead.

    I saw Gov. George Wallace in a wheelchair in July 1972 at the Miami Beach Democratic convention, two months after he was shot that year. And of course there was an attempt on President Reagan’s life early in his term. We were not Reagan supporters in my family but we were shocked and horrified then and were thrilled that the President recovered.

    But there were people who cheered when they heard JFK was shot. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had been hit on the head with a placard and spit upon by protestors in Dallas just before that, and he warned Kennedy not to go, that there was an ugly mood and countenancing violence.

    It bothers me to think that if something like that happened in the next few years, some people in this country would be cheering and celebrating. I don’t think this is true of anyone reading this; at least I hope not.

    Today I read that threats against our current President’s life are up 400% over threats againt his predecessor.

    I am sure there are some who will blame Obama for these death threats.

    Again, I don’t know why you think he’s some kind of radical socialist. Most of us on the left are disgusted because he’s so corporate and constantly trying to appease conservatives and Republicans. He’s changed very few of President Bush’s policies. Single-payer health care, Medicare for all, which most liberals want, has never even been considered by Obama. Not to mention his saying in Phoenix that Afghanistan is a war of necessity.

    I don’t see any of the Obama worship you talk about among New York liberals.

  7. Tucson Vice says

    I know the physical differences between the two. I’ve deployed to both wars and carried these kind of weapons.

    I suppose my point is that a trained marksman can achieve the same result using either weapon. In this respect, there is no important difference.

Leave a Reply