Oooh, nuance!: house of representatives

Showing posts with label house of representatives. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

No Money for Switching to Paper Ballots...

say House Republics.

TRENTON, N.J. - Legislation sponsored by a New Jersey congressman that would have reimbursed states wanting to adopt voting safeguards before the November presidential election failed to win approval Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill, dubbed the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008, fell short of the two-thirds majority it needed to pass, even after clearing a House committee unanimously. The vote was 239-178 in favor, with all but two Democrats supporting it and all but 16 Republicans opposed.

The two Democrats who voted nay on H R 5036 were Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Nick Rahall. [I can't find an answer as to why Kucinich voted against it, but I'm assuming it didn't go far enough for him.] The 16 Republicans who voted in favor of the bill were Reps. Vern Buchanan, Steve Chabot, Tom Cole, Tom Davis, Charlie Dent, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, Jim Gerlach, Dean Heller, Tim Murphy, Marilyn Musgrave, Jon Porter, Jim Ramstad, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chris Shays, and Chris Smith. [Good for them. Even a blind pig finds a truffle every now and then.]

The bill would have allowed states and jurisdictions to be reimbursed by the federal government for converting to a paper ballot system, offering emergency paper ballots or conducting audits by hand counts.

The measure was designed to ensure that every vote is properly counted. Voters in all or parts of 20 states including New Jersey now cast ballots electronically without backup paper verification, according to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J.

The bill would have provided reimbursements for states to provide voter-verified, audited balloting for the general election, but it would not have mandated standards for the states.

Republicans opposed the bill because of the cost. [No, they didn't, as the next two paragraphs show.]

The White House on Tuesday noted that a 2002 election reform act had authorized $3 billion to help states upgrade their voting systems, and that about one-third of that money was still available.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the legislation at $685 million, but supporters said that applied only to a worst-case scenario where many states opted to change their systems. [See? One-third of three billion is one billion. One billion is MORE than 685 million. Ah, Republic math!]

I'm not surprised that Republics voted against helping states fund the switch to paper ballots. For many years, they have been on the wrong side of voter enfranchisement. Indeed, as conservative stalwart Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, famously said, the more they can suppress the vote, the better it is for their party.

The hopeful thing for the future is that almost every Democrat voted for the bill. So, once we have more Democrats in Congress, which we most assuredly will in 2009, I feel confident that we will get rid of the paperless voting machines once and for all.

The next step after that, of course, would be returning our franchise to the government instead of keeping it within the purview of private corporations. Oregon votes by mail, and it seems to work quite well. I don't see why Americans all over the country couldn't do the same thing, or some variation thereof.

Of course, that would mean the Republic owners of the voting machine companies, like ES&S, Sequoia and Diebold, would lose their businesses. But hey - that's the free market, guys. If no one wants your product, you lose!

Wouldn't it be lovely if for once, rich Republics had to actually compete in their so-called free market, instead of being able to game the system with no-bid contracts?

Ah, hope is the thing with feathers...

Friday, April 11, 2008

Nixon's Greatest Hits

Okay, no more McCaca today. Today's obsession is - Tricky Dick!

Apparently, we're still kicking him around.

President Bush's refusal to let two confidants provide information to Congress about fired federal prosecutors represents the most expansive view of executive privilege since Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee told a federal judge Thursday.

Lawyers for the Democratic-led panel argued in court documents that Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers are not protected from subpoenas last year that sought information about the dismissals.

The legal filing came in lawsuit that pits the legislative branch against the executive in a fight over a president's powers.

The committee is seeking the testimony as it tries to make a case that the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys because they were not supportive enough of Republicans' political agenda.

[snip]

"Not since the days of Watergate have the Congress and the federal courts been confronted with such an expansive view of executive privilege as the one asserted by the current presidential administration and the individual defendants in this case," according to the House's filing.

The idea that Miers could disregard an order to appear at a hearing simply at the president's request suggests a return to the sentiment expressed in Nixon's statement, as quoted in a 1977 New York Times interview, that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal," the House lawyers wrote.
My goodness. Why in the world would the Bush Administration be so incredibly secretive? Could it possibly be that they are also hiding something nefarious? Not just about the fired attorneys, but about many other things? Things that could be, well, illegal under our Constitution and international law?

Like, perhaps, this?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.
We have replaced the paranoid, drunk, dictatorial President Richard Nixon with the paranoid, drunk, dictatorial, warmongering, face-shooting, torturing President Richard Cheney.

I'll tell you something: it's not an improvement. Because Cheney learned from Nixon's mistakes: he corrupted the Justice Department immediately upon taking office, and had Bush push through as many right-wing federal judges as possible while the Republics were in the majority.

Now, despite the Democrats' efforts to hold this Administration accountable for clear and obvious criminality, it may be impossible to circumvent all the roadblocks put in place by our new Tricky Dick and his trained monkey. The reason the subpoenas of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten were not enforced in the first place was that the Justice Department refused to enforce them. The House then filed contempt charges, which the Justice Department again refused to enforce. At that point, the House decided to sue in federal court, and this is where we are.

I just have one eensy request: If we're going to repeat Richard Nixon's greatest hits, can we play my favorite one?

Impeachment?

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Congress Starts to Figure Out: Hey! Bush IS a Lame Duck. Quack, Quack.

Oh my goodness, you mean he's NOT the Decider? Iraq 4-Evah...not so much.

Critics of a permanent presence in Iraq blasted Bush’s effort to cut Congress out of the process, saying the President had “absolutely zero credibility” to “unilaterally negotiate an agreement with Iraq on security.” Bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate that would bar the White House from making any such deals without Congressional approval.

[snip]

UPDATE: During a Senate hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that “any strategic framework agreement” with Iraq “will not contain a committment to defend Iraq.”

Look, we know we cannot trust Bush to abide by written agreements, but what he normally does with his "signing statements" is to claim that "this agreement/law does not apply to me." My sense is that even he will not be able to introduce language into the bill with a signing statement.

This is definitely a win: for Congressional Democrats, for whomever becomes President next year, and most importantly, for our soldiers in the field and at home. This agreement could have been a stone around the neck of the new Commander-in-Chief. Instead, there will be nothing to prevent the next President from immediately beginning the withdrawal from Iraq (and I hope, although this is not brought up much, either putting up or shutting up in Afghanistan).

I hope Congress continues to add cartilage to its collective spine. If this keeps up, we may actually have some accountability for the Bush Crime Family's lawlessness.

If we keep after our Congresscritters, such a thing may indeed come to pass.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Quien es Mas Progressive?

Thanks to the always informative commenters at Eschaton yesterday, I have discovered an excellent new-to-me online source for this information: it's called Progressive Punch.

The group is a non-partisan, but left-leaning, organization that reviews and analyzes the Congressional voting database for you. You can check each vote of your Congresscritter and see if it matched the progressive position at the time. The votes are even broken out into handy-dandy categories for you, such as Housing, Corporate Subsidies, War and Peace, Family Planning, and so on. Nifty!

Since it is common wisdom among many progressives that Hillary has a very conservative voting record, I looked it up. Believe it or not, she has a 91.29% rating overall, making her the 16th most progressive Senator in Congress. I also checked Senator Obama's record. Surprisingly, his rating is a bit lower - 88.76% - making him the 24th most progressive Senator in Congress.

Of course, it also works for your personal CongressPeople. I just checked out my Representative, Nita Lowey, and let's just say if a Progressive Democrat challenges her in the primaries, I'm not voting for the incumbent. War and Peace at 66%! Yikes!

But don't believe me. Go check it out for yourself, and maybe give them a little turkee for making it so easy to fact-check our Critters' Creds!

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

It's a Big Day in Congress.

The Mukasey confirmation vote in the Senate and the Kucinich Impeachment Resolution of Dick Cheney in the House are both supposed to be put forward today.

Let me be clear about my feelings on Mukasey. I have no doubt that, as Senators Schumer and Feinstein are saying, George W. Bush could recess appoint someone "worse" than Mukasey if the Judge is not confirmed. Indeed, the mind boggles at some of the horrendous Bush cronies that could be foisted upon the American people. Ted Olson, for example. [shudder]

But politically speaking, the American people know that if Bush can't get a nominee past Congress, he has lost. Even though Bush forced John Bolton in as Ambassador to the U.N., Bolton had no credibility because we all knew that even the Fascists did not want him to represent our government. It follows that if the Democrats oppose Bush completely on his nominees for AG, they will have won the war, even if they lose the battle.

Standing up to Bush is a political winner. Period. A President with Nixonian approval ratings should not be seen to have the least bit of support for any of his initiatives from the opposition party. Such support gives the mistaken impression that our representatives agree with Bush and are no different from him. Unfortunate indeed, since the Democrats' very slim majority - and the Fascists' united support of their Dear Leader - often leaves them with only bad or worse choices, such as fighting the semi-rational Mukasey or getting an even more corrupt and enabling AG appointed during recess.

I'm not saying that some of the Democrats aren't Fascist lite - I believe that the ones that vote consistently with Bush, such as, for example, Al Wynn from Maryland - actually are. But don't the majority of Democrats know by now that if they give Bush anything he wants, whatever good intentions they may have, they will be perceived as enablers?

Better to fight the good fight and lose, than to be seen as a Vichy Democrat by your supporters. The Fascists have known this forever. In this one instance, we would be well-advised to learn from our enemies.

UPDATE! Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney has gone to John Conyers and the Judiciary Committee. Stay tuned to the Internets - no coverage will appear on your teevee (unless you watch Keith Olbermann of course...)

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Journamalism!

When will progressives learn that the traditional media lies about Democrats? Apparently, never.

Here's some detailed information about the new FISA legislation STRENGTHENING FISA and giving Bush...nothing.

I must say, I think that Fascists have a point about liberals and progressives. Some of us ARE whiners. Moreover, we are so ready to believe the worst about our representatives that we are very easily led by the rightwing echo chamber into screaming how worthless, how weak, how useless the Democrats are, even when they are doing the right thing. Heckuva job, us!!!

Say what you will about the Fascists, and believe me, I do - they don't give up. It took them 40 years to get where they are today, and they've had a whole six years of sweet, sweet power because of their efforts. They have also succeeded in completely destroying the Republican Party and uniting 70% of the country behind the progressive agenda, but hey! They were committed and they accomplished their objectives for a time. Why can't we borrow some of their spine and determination?

And why can't we acknowledge that yes, Democrats ARE better than Fascists. Yes, they do a lot of things right. Yes, their ideas are usually good. Deal with it. Our side is the right side!

I'm so tired of hearing people bitch and moan about the Democratic Congress. If we won't even take the trouble to correctly inform ourselves, then we shouldn't devolve into hysteria every time a misleading story is planted about in the traditional media.

We should all take a breath before we jump.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Dennis Hastert (R-Mark Foley) to Retire at End of Term. Shocked? Didn't Think So.

CQ (Congressional Quarterly) reports today:

After less than a year as a rank-and-file House member, former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is expected to call an end to a political career that made him the longest serving Republican Speaker in the history of the House of Representatives.

Several Illinois newspapers, including the Aurora Beacon News and the Chicago Tribune, reported Tuesday that the Illinois Republican has scheduled a Friday announcement on the steps of the Kendall County Courthouse in Yorkville, Ill. While Hastert aides are refusing to discuss what he plans to say, he is expected to announce that he will not run for a 12th term in 2008, according to Republican sources.

Remember when the name of Dennis Hastert was constantly in the news? As the Republic Speaker of the House in the pre-2006 Republic Congress, it must have been because of all the accomplishments of his tenure, right? After all, unlike Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker, he had the benefit of a like-minded majority in the House and Senate, as well as a Republic president to rubberstamp every bill. Not only that, but he was the longest-serving Republic Speaker in the history of the House. He must be so proud of his service to his country!

Well....maybe not. CQ's summary of his career is quoted below. Notice the incredible disasters he's been a part of, as well as the personal scandals that blossomed, like turds, around his giant body (oh please, they say Al Gore is fat, so Hastert's fair game). Heckuva job, Denny!

Hastert, 65, was first elected to Congress in 1986 after GOP Rep. John E. Grotberg retired. He quietly worked his way up the ranks in the House, propelled into the Republican leadership in 1994 by then-Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Hastert ran DeLay’s successful upstart campaign for majority whip after Republicans captured control of Congress, and DeLay in turn named Hastert as his chief deputy. Four years later, in 1998, DeLay helped to elevate Hastert to Speaker after Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., stepped down following the loss of GOP seats in that year’s elections and Robert L. Livingston, R-La., withdrew abruptly from contention after acknowledging an extramarital affair.

As Speaker, Hastert led the House Republican majority for eight years during which the GOP solidified its power and aggressively pursued conservative policies.

He presided over the House through the Sept. 11 attacks and the start of the Iraq war, and shepherded through the massive 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (PL 107-16, PL 108-27) that pleased the conservative majority. He managed to float above various scandals and public discontent with Republican policies while many of his colleagues fell by the wayside — including, ultimately, DeLay.

Throughout his time as Speaker, Hastert was personally popular with rank-and-file Republicans, who never saw him as part of the ethics problems that plagued DeLay and former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla. (1995-2006), or the criminal misdeeds of former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif. (1991-2005) and Bob Ney, R-Ohio (1995-2006).

The impact of the scandals added up, however, and became campaign fodder for Democrats, who made the “culture of corruption” in Congress a 2006 campaign mantra. When Democrats took over at the start of the 110th Congress, Hastert made no attempt to remain in the leadership. He has spent this year as a mostly silent back-bencher.

Ah, how the mightily corrupt are falling. The Schadenfreude is thick and deep this week, my friends. Enjoy!

Monday, August 6, 2007

It's a Start

The Democrats in Congress (not in recess yet, thanks to the Deciderer's actions last Friday) have taken the first step in holding this criminal administration accountable for its lawbreaking and disregard for our Constitution. They are introducing censure resolutions in the House and Senate for George Bush, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.

Sen. Russ Feingold sponsored two resolutions in his chamber calling for the legislative action against the administration officials because of they misled the country in pursuing war with Iraq and have undermined the rule of law, he said.

"These censure resolutions will let future generations know that Congress stood up to the destructive policies of this administration that have weakened our national security, cost more than 3,600 American lives, and undermined the principles on which our country was founded," Feingold said in a prepared statement.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) introduced companion legislation in the House.

“From misleading this country into invading Iraq to establishing a warrantless domestic spy program, this White House has continuously misled and deceived the American people while disregarding the rule of law that guides our democracy,” Hinchey said in a prepared statement. “The Bush administration has placed an extraordinary burden on this and future generations to recover from the damage done to our Constitution and national security."

Since censure is a purely legislative process and is not specifically mentioned by the Constitution, it seems likely that the majority party would not have any problem passing these motions. A successful impeachment, of course, would require House and Senate majorities, and with the Republics still clinging stubbornly to the splinters of Bush's log raft as it careens down Niagara Falls, it would be impossible to pursue at this point.

But step by step, little by little, the Democrats are pulling this country back from the abyss. Too bad the Republics are too stupid to save themselves from falling in.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Activism Alert! Kick Fredo to the Curb.

Become a citizen co-sponsor of Congressman Jay Inslee's Gonzo Impeachment Resolution here.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

It was a Good Day in the House.

Way to go, Congressman Robert D. Brady (D-PA)!

You're the 15th Representative to sign on to HR 333. Impeachment of Darth Cheney is only TWO VOTES AWAY.

Way to go, Barbara Lee (D-CA)! Your bill banning permanent bases in Iraq and protecting Iraqi oil from U.S. control passed the House 344-17.

Lee's HR 2929 was considered under suspension of the rules, which bars amendments, limits debate and requires a two-thirds vote for passage -- a sign that House Democratic leaders saw it not only as good policy, but as another tool putting Republicans on the spot to oppose a long-term presence in Iraq.

"Putting Congress on record with this clear statement helps take the targets off our troops' backs and it supports our goals of handing over responsibility for security and public safety to Iraqi forces," Lee, D-Oakland, said on the House floor.

"We must soundly reject the vision of an open-ended occupation as bad policy that undermines the safety of our troops and recognize it for what it is: another recruiting poster for terrorists," she said.

This, on top of contempt charges for Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers! Most, most exxxxxcellent.

Oooh, nuance!