Worked up over Nothing

Yesterday I responded to an article that quoted heavily from the Washington Post on the subject of whether Rep. Gabrielle Giffords would lose her congressional seat. Let me it make clear that I was responding to claims made in the article, not attempting to interpret Arizona state law. More accurately, I was responding to the sentiments expressed in the claims.

The Washington Post was getting worked up over nothing. It seems that the statute brought into question regarding whether Giffords’ congressional seat is considered vacant does not even apply to federal offices. Had the reactionaries who were so agitated by the statute bothered to investigate, they would have maybe held their tongues. Instead, their inner workings were partially revealed, displaying a preference to see American citizens unrepresented rather than risk losing a Democrat seat in congress. How’s that for ugly politics?

Furthermore, they reveal their contempt for the rule of law first by not bothering to understand it, then by besmirching it as obscure and declaring vagaries where clarity abounds. I located the statute, so the readers can decide for themselves how obscure or vague it is. 

Then again, it might not be a knee-jerk reaction, and instead a calculated maneuver. By broaching the subject so soon, the Washington Post ensured its tastelessness would overshadow its irrelevance.  That's a taste that is likely to linger. The Post may have just made the first brushstrokes in painting Republicans as overly eager to unseat as many congressional Democrats as possible by any means—essentially sticking to their original view of the shooter as a proxy for the Tea Party.

Should any serious consideration need to be made into finding a replacement for Giffords, the idea will almost certainly be treated as having conservative origins. I would not be surprised if congressional Democrats—who couldn’t get enough done in the month of December—manage to drag any such conversation out to the next election.