At-Risk Democrats More Apt to Split House Votes
Many Vulnerable Lawmakers Vote Independent Line in House
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Mehsud Dead...Let Us Hope
It appears a drone attack in Pakistan has been successful in killing the self-described Taliban leader in that country. Let us hope the initial reports are correct. If the reports are true this would be a victory in trying to disrupt the Taliban leadership in this critical region.Thursday, August 6, 2009
Town Halls Continue to Spiral Out of Control
This is no longer about debating the issue. This is simply shouting down those you don't like. So much for intellectually debating the issues.
White House to Democrats: 'Punch back twice as hard'
And now fist fights at a town hall?
Another Dem overrun by protesters at town hall
Town hall trouble from both sides now
OFA tries to counter "mobs" with their own supporters
Media Bias in Coverage? You decide...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2009/fox-news--the-new-liberals
White House to Democrats: 'Punch back twice as hard'
And now fist fights at a town hall?
Another Dem overrun by protesters at town hall
Town hall trouble from both sides now
OFA tries to counter "mobs" with their own supporters
Media Bias in Coverage? You decide...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2009/fox-news--the-new-liberals
Monday, August 3, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Too Much Democracy?
Is meeting with the voters always good?Do voters have the right to interrupt town hall meetings with protests?
Town halls gone wild
Protests designed to embarrass members of Congress
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
What a Constitution Should Look Like
Here I try to detail the challenges and concerns that formed the basis of the ratification debate in 1787-1788.
So Easily Distracted...
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Born Identity | ||||
| ||||
In the age of the internet we all need to become better consumers of information. We all have a responsibility to confirm information from credible sources. Furthermore, we have a responsibility to expose falsehoods and conspiracy theories for what they are.
I recommend the following site to validate the information given out by both sides of the political spectrum.
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.politifact.com/
The specific entry on the birth certificate issue.
Further investigations.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Defense Spending Battle
Battle over the F-22 crosses party lines.
Senate votes to cut F-22 fighter jet funding
Vote Breakdown
More Budget Battles to the Horizon
Senate votes to cut F-22 fighter jet funding
Vote Breakdown
More Budget Battles to the Horizon
Monday, July 20, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings
Confirmation Hearings Assignment
You are to watch the videos below and comment to the post with the following information.
1) Describe what you see in the videos
2) What questions are asked by Senators?
3) What responses are given by Sotomayor?
4) Why are these questions being asked and why are these answers being given? Please note, I am not looking for your personal views but rather logical analysis.
Day 1 of Questioning
Day 2 of Questioning
Final Day of Questioning
Legal Scholars Offer Their Opinions
You are to watch the videos below and comment to the post with the following information.
1) Describe what you see in the videos
2) What questions are asked by Senators?
3) What responses are given by Sotomayor?
4) Why are these questions being asked and why are these answers being given? Please note, I am not looking for your personal views but rather logical analysis.
Day 1 of Questioning
Day 2 of Questioning
Final Day of Questioning
Legal Scholars Offer Their Opinions
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
We Have a Budget!!!
Final bill passes with wealth of grumbling
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:03 AM
By Mark Niquette and Joe Hallett
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
After a 13-day impasse, the Ohio legislature yesterday rocketed a new state budget to the governor that Democrats say makes the best of a bad economic hand dealt to the state but Republicans say is a gamble that won't pay off.
The bill allows Gov. Ted Strickland to add electronic video slot machines at Ohio's seven horse-racing tracks, proposed to be operational by May, to help balance the budget with $2.5 billion in spending cuts but without raising taxes.
Almost no one on either side of the partisan divide liked the finished product -- Republicans supplied just six votes, including five needed in the Senate for passage. But last night, Strickland hailed an end to the rancorous standoff.
"Our people and our businesses are struggling to stay afloat in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," the governor said in a statement. "This budget protects them from tax increases they simply cannot afford."
Strickland and legislative Democrats also found silver-linings in the two-year, $50.5 billion spending plan, particularly language initiating the governor's "evidence-based" education reforms over the next 10 years.
But Republicans said the final version was rushed (and there wasn't enough time to read it), relies on billions in "one-time" money and depends on dubious returns from expanded gambling that voters have rejected four times in recent years.
"These decisions are going to plague the state for years," said Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering.
Critics predicted that the $933 million in projected gambling revenue won't materialize and, considering iffy tax revenue estimates, use of one-time money and delayed spending, that tax hikes or other fixes will be needed -- in the next budget or sooner.
The House approved the budget 54-44; Rep. W. Scott Oelslager of Canton was the only Republican to support it.
The Senate debated the bill less than a half-hour before approving it 17-15, with all 12 Democrats voting yes.
The legislature adopted another interim budget, the third since the old budget expired June 30, to allow enough time to prepare the document for Strickland's signature later this week.
A disagreement over gambling delayed the budget past the June 30 deadline. Strickland issued a directive to the Lottery Commission yesterday to begin the process of adding up to 2,500 slots at each track, and the legislature added budget language authorizing them.
Each track must pay a $65 million licensing fee, with $13 million due Sept. 15. The state will get 50 percent of profits generated by wagering with the machines. The Ohio Lottery will own the terminals or lease them from the manufacturer.
Yesterday, the Ohio Christian Alliance condemned the state's move into casino-style gambling and said it might sue to block the move. The conservative Ohio Roundtable already has vowed to sue.
The possibility of slot machines at Scioto Downs south of Columbus also has complicated the Ohio High School Athletic Association's annual cross-country meet at the racetrack. It is scheduled for Nov. 7 and will remain there until more about the plan is known, the association said.
Democrats, meanwhile, trumpeted the "transformational" education changes in the budget, which cuts state funding to schools but has an overall increase with federal stimulus funds.
School districts also will be required to offer all-day kindergarten beginning in the 2010-11 school year, although an optional half-day program would be available to parents.
That's the same year schools must begin reducing class sizes in kindergarten through third grade. Classrooms must be no larger than 19 students in the 2010-11 school year and down to 15 students by 2014-15. The budget provides no additional funding for all-day kindergarten or smaller class sizes.
The budget eliminates Ohio's graduation test and requires students to complete the ACT or another college entrance exam, pass end-of-course exams and complete a senior thesis. A service project was dropped from the requirements.
Charter schools avoided deep cuts that had been proposed by Strickland under a compromise that continues to provide the same level of state aid as received by traditional public schools.
The budget reduced the number of calamity days schools can be closed without making them up to three in the 2010-11 school year, down from five.
But Strickland's call for extending the school year by 20 days was shelved for now; the budget calls for the state superintendent to study the issue and report back to lawmakers by Dec. 31, 2010. Corporal punishment was banned for all but parochial schools.
Republicans grumbled that the budget cuts funding for the parochial schools and is $2.5 billion short of what Strickland determined to be adequate for public education -- leaving future governors and legislatures to pay for it.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:03 AM
By Mark Niquette and Joe Hallett
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
After a 13-day impasse, the Ohio legislature yesterday rocketed a new state budget to the governor that Democrats say makes the best of a bad economic hand dealt to the state but Republicans say is a gamble that won't pay off.
The bill allows Gov. Ted Strickland to add electronic video slot machines at Ohio's seven horse-racing tracks, proposed to be operational by May, to help balance the budget with $2.5 billion in spending cuts but without raising taxes.
Almost no one on either side of the partisan divide liked the finished product -- Republicans supplied just six votes, including five needed in the Senate for passage. But last night, Strickland hailed an end to the rancorous standoff.
"Our people and our businesses are struggling to stay afloat in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," the governor said in a statement. "This budget protects them from tax increases they simply cannot afford."
Strickland and legislative Democrats also found silver-linings in the two-year, $50.5 billion spending plan, particularly language initiating the governor's "evidence-based" education reforms over the next 10 years.
But Republicans said the final version was rushed (and there wasn't enough time to read it), relies on billions in "one-time" money and depends on dubious returns from expanded gambling that voters have rejected four times in recent years.
"These decisions are going to plague the state for years," said Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering.
Critics predicted that the $933 million in projected gambling revenue won't materialize and, considering iffy tax revenue estimates, use of one-time money and delayed spending, that tax hikes or other fixes will be needed -- in the next budget or sooner.
The House approved the budget 54-44; Rep. W. Scott Oelslager of Canton was the only Republican to support it.
The Senate debated the bill less than a half-hour before approving it 17-15, with all 12 Democrats voting yes.
The legislature adopted another interim budget, the third since the old budget expired June 30, to allow enough time to prepare the document for Strickland's signature later this week.
A disagreement over gambling delayed the budget past the June 30 deadline. Strickland issued a directive to the Lottery Commission yesterday to begin the process of adding up to 2,500 slots at each track, and the legislature added budget language authorizing them.
Each track must pay a $65 million licensing fee, with $13 million due Sept. 15. The state will get 50 percent of profits generated by wagering with the machines. The Ohio Lottery will own the terminals or lease them from the manufacturer.
Yesterday, the Ohio Christian Alliance condemned the state's move into casino-style gambling and said it might sue to block the move. The conservative Ohio Roundtable already has vowed to sue.
The possibility of slot machines at Scioto Downs south of Columbus also has complicated the Ohio High School Athletic Association's annual cross-country meet at the racetrack. It is scheduled for Nov. 7 and will remain there until more about the plan is known, the association said.
Democrats, meanwhile, trumpeted the "transformational" education changes in the budget, which cuts state funding to schools but has an overall increase with federal stimulus funds.
School districts also will be required to offer all-day kindergarten beginning in the 2010-11 school year, although an optional half-day program would be available to parents.
That's the same year schools must begin reducing class sizes in kindergarten through third grade. Classrooms must be no larger than 19 students in the 2010-11 school year and down to 15 students by 2014-15. The budget provides no additional funding for all-day kindergarten or smaller class sizes.
The budget eliminates Ohio's graduation test and requires students to complete the ACT or another college entrance exam, pass end-of-course exams and complete a senior thesis. A service project was dropped from the requirements.
Charter schools avoided deep cuts that had been proposed by Strickland under a compromise that continues to provide the same level of state aid as received by traditional public schools.
The budget reduced the number of calamity days schools can be closed without making them up to three in the 2010-11 school year, down from five.
But Strickland's call for extending the school year by 20 days was shelved for now; the budget calls for the state superintendent to study the issue and report back to lawmakers by Dec. 31, 2010. Corporal punishment was banned for all but parochial schools.
Republicans grumbled that the budget cuts funding for the parochial schools and is $2.5 billion short of what Strickland determined to be adequate for public education -- leaving future governors and legislatures to pay for it.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Power in the House
Bill Reading Assignment
You are to read the two articles found in this post and comment with the following information:
1) Explain the issue
2) Is this more an issue between Democrats and Republicans or between the majority and minority party? Explain your answer.
3) Explain why the current reading procedures should not be changed. Please note, I don't want your personal opinion, I just want you to argue this position.
4) Explain why the current reading procedures should be changed. Please note, I don't want your personal opinion, I just want you to argue this position.
The Reading Hour in the House
By Bernie Becker
July 9, 2009, 3:27 pm
NY Times
The Democratic and Republican leaderships in the House used the health care debate to revive an old argument this week – whether legislation gets debated vigorously enough before heading to a vote.
Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader, has taken a pledge, issued by a conservative group, to personally read every page of the upcoming health care legislation – and urged his colleagues to do the same. Let Freedom Ring, the Delaware-based advocacy group that issued the challenge to every member of Congress, has also asked that the bill be posted online for 72 hours before it comes to a vote.
On separate occasions this week, Democratic leaders in the House scoffed at the pledge, saying plenty of time will be given to consider the bill and that members regularly don’t read every word of a bill before casting their vote.
Historically, the minority party in the House – be it Republicans or Democrats – have railed that they are not given enough time to consider legislation before it comes to the floor.
As the House was approaching a vote on the climate and energy bill in late June, Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, took to the floor and read pages of amendments to the bill added just hours earlier, saying afterward “there are times when the majority just does such outrageous things that you have to find a way to make your point to the American people.”
The last time they were in the minority, Democrats often complained that Republicans, led by then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay, would quickly ram bills through the House.
Now back in the majority, House Democrats seem to have little sympathy for their colleagues across the aisle.
On Tuesday, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer laughed after being asked by a reporter about the health care pledge. (A spokesman said that Mr. Boehner used that hook to distribute the pledge to his Republican colleagues.)
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” said Mr. Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, who added that members read large portions of bills themselves and have staff members who tackle the whole bill.
At her weekly news conference on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, had a similar reaction when asked if she would follow Mr. Boehner’s lead and take the pledge herself.
“Is this a pledge that is in keeping with his having read all of the bills that he’s ever voted for?”
Mrs. Pelosi, a California Democrat, asked.” I don’t know what his pledge is, but we pledge to have a full process with ample time for the legislation to be wellknown to the public. Every person in America is an expert on his or her health care. And they’re all very curious about what will be there.”
Mr. Boehner fired back at his own Thursday news conference, saying that Democrats won’t want the public to read the health care legislation once it is drafted.
“They might find out how ridiculous it is,” he said.
________________________________________________________
Lawmakers, read the bills before you vote
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / July 12, 2009
The Boston Globe
SAY, DID you hear the one about the congressman who was asked to do his job? Talk about funny - this will crack you up!
Well, maybe it won’t. But Steny Hoyer thought it was hilarious.
Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the majority leader in the House of Representatives. At a news conference last week, he was talking about the healthcare overhaul being drafted on Capitol Hill, and a reporter asked whether he would support a pledge committing members of Congress to read the bill before voting on it, and to make the full text of the legislation available to the public online for 72 hours before the vote takes place.
That, reported CNSNews, gave Hoyer the giggles: The majority leader “found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. ‘I’m laughing because . . . I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,’ he said.’’
Then came one of those classic Washington gaffes that Michael Kinsley famously defined as “when a politician tells the truth.’’ Hoyer conceded that if lawmakers had to carefully study the bill ahead of time, they would never vote for it. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,’’ he said. The majority leader was declaring, in other words, that it is more important for Congress to pass the bill than to understand it.
“Transparency’’ is a popular buzzword in good-government circles, and politicians are forever promising to transact the people’s business in the sunshine. But as Hoyer’s mirth suggests, when it comes to lawmaking, transparency is a joke. Congress frequently votes on huge and complex bills that few if any members of the House or Senate has read through. They couldn’t read them even if they wanted to, since it is not unusual for legislation to be put to a vote just hours after the text is made available to lawmakers. Congress passed the gigantic, $787 billion “stimulus’’ bill in February - the largest spending bill in history - after having had only 13 hours to master its 1,100 pages.
A 300-page amendment was added to Waxman-Markey, the mammoth cap-and-trade energy bill, at 3 a.m. on the day the bill was to be voted on by the House.
And that wasn’t the worst of it, as law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University noted in National Review Online:
“When Waxman-Markey finally hit the floor, there was no actual bill. Not one single copy of the full legislation that would, hours later, be subject to a final vote was available to members of the House. The text made available to some members of Congress still had ‘placeholders’ - blank provisions to be filled in by subsequent language.’’
Ramming legislation through Congress so quickly that neither lawmakers nor voters have time to read and digest it is a bipartisan crime; Republicans have been as guilty of it as Democrats.
The 341-page Patriot Act, to mention just one notorious example, was introduced in the Republican-controlled House on Oct. 23, 2001, brought to a vote on Oct. 24, adopted by the Democratic-controlled Senate on Oct. 25, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26.
Such efficiency is no virtue when it comes to lawmaking, which is why every member of Congress should be pressed to sign the pledge Hoyer was asked about. It is sponsored by a grass-roots conservative group, Let Freedom Ring, and is readily accessible online. Equally worthy of support is ReadTheBill.org, which is backed by a coalition of liberal organizations. Still another push comes from the libertarian group Downsize DC, which urges Congress to pass its proposed Read The Bills Act.
Senators and representatives who vote on bills they haven’t read and don’t understand betray their constituents’ trust. It is no excuse to say that Congress would get much less done if every member took the time to read every bill. Fewer and shorter laws more carefully thought through would be a vast improvement over today’s massive bills, which are assembled in the dark and enacted in haste. Steny Hoyer chortles at the thought of asking members of Congress to do their job properly. It’s up to voters to wipe the grin off his face.
You are to read the two articles found in this post and comment with the following information:
1) Explain the issue
2) Is this more an issue between Democrats and Republicans or between the majority and minority party? Explain your answer.
3) Explain why the current reading procedures should not be changed. Please note, I don't want your personal opinion, I just want you to argue this position.
4) Explain why the current reading procedures should be changed. Please note, I don't want your personal opinion, I just want you to argue this position.
The Reading Hour in the House
By Bernie Becker
July 9, 2009, 3:27 pm
NY Times
The Democratic and Republican leaderships in the House used the health care debate to revive an old argument this week – whether legislation gets debated vigorously enough before heading to a vote.
Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader, has taken a pledge, issued by a conservative group, to personally read every page of the upcoming health care legislation – and urged his colleagues to do the same. Let Freedom Ring, the Delaware-based advocacy group that issued the challenge to every member of Congress, has also asked that the bill be posted online for 72 hours before it comes to a vote.
On separate occasions this week, Democratic leaders in the House scoffed at the pledge, saying plenty of time will be given to consider the bill and that members regularly don’t read every word of a bill before casting their vote.
Historically, the minority party in the House – be it Republicans or Democrats – have railed that they are not given enough time to consider legislation before it comes to the floor.
As the House was approaching a vote on the climate and energy bill in late June, Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, took to the floor and read pages of amendments to the bill added just hours earlier, saying afterward “there are times when the majority just does such outrageous things that you have to find a way to make your point to the American people.”
The last time they were in the minority, Democrats often complained that Republicans, led by then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay, would quickly ram bills through the House.
Now back in the majority, House Democrats seem to have little sympathy for their colleagues across the aisle.
On Tuesday, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer laughed after being asked by a reporter about the health care pledge. (A spokesman said that Mr. Boehner used that hook to distribute the pledge to his Republican colleagues.)
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” said Mr. Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, who added that members read large portions of bills themselves and have staff members who tackle the whole bill.
At her weekly news conference on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, had a similar reaction when asked if she would follow Mr. Boehner’s lead and take the pledge herself.
“Is this a pledge that is in keeping with his having read all of the bills that he’s ever voted for?”
Mrs. Pelosi, a California Democrat, asked.” I don’t know what his pledge is, but we pledge to have a full process with ample time for the legislation to be wellknown to the public. Every person in America is an expert on his or her health care. And they’re all very curious about what will be there.”
Mr. Boehner fired back at his own Thursday news conference, saying that Democrats won’t want the public to read the health care legislation once it is drafted.
“They might find out how ridiculous it is,” he said.
________________________________________________________
Lawmakers, read the bills before you vote
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / July 12, 2009
The Boston Globe
SAY, DID you hear the one about the congressman who was asked to do his job? Talk about funny - this will crack you up!
Well, maybe it won’t. But Steny Hoyer thought it was hilarious.
Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the majority leader in the House of Representatives. At a news conference last week, he was talking about the healthcare overhaul being drafted on Capitol Hill, and a reporter asked whether he would support a pledge committing members of Congress to read the bill before voting on it, and to make the full text of the legislation available to the public online for 72 hours before the vote takes place.
That, reported CNSNews, gave Hoyer the giggles: The majority leader “found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. ‘I’m laughing because . . . I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,’ he said.’’
Then came one of those classic Washington gaffes that Michael Kinsley famously defined as “when a politician tells the truth.’’ Hoyer conceded that if lawmakers had to carefully study the bill ahead of time, they would never vote for it. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,’’ he said. The majority leader was declaring, in other words, that it is more important for Congress to pass the bill than to understand it.
“Transparency’’ is a popular buzzword in good-government circles, and politicians are forever promising to transact the people’s business in the sunshine. But as Hoyer’s mirth suggests, when it comes to lawmaking, transparency is a joke. Congress frequently votes on huge and complex bills that few if any members of the House or Senate has read through. They couldn’t read them even if they wanted to, since it is not unusual for legislation to be put to a vote just hours after the text is made available to lawmakers. Congress passed the gigantic, $787 billion “stimulus’’ bill in February - the largest spending bill in history - after having had only 13 hours to master its 1,100 pages.
A 300-page amendment was added to Waxman-Markey, the mammoth cap-and-trade energy bill, at 3 a.m. on the day the bill was to be voted on by the House.
And that wasn’t the worst of it, as law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University noted in National Review Online:
“When Waxman-Markey finally hit the floor, there was no actual bill. Not one single copy of the full legislation that would, hours later, be subject to a final vote was available to members of the House. The text made available to some members of Congress still had ‘placeholders’ - blank provisions to be filled in by subsequent language.’’
Ramming legislation through Congress so quickly that neither lawmakers nor voters have time to read and digest it is a bipartisan crime; Republicans have been as guilty of it as Democrats.
The 341-page Patriot Act, to mention just one notorious example, was introduced in the Republican-controlled House on Oct. 23, 2001, brought to a vote on Oct. 24, adopted by the Democratic-controlled Senate on Oct. 25, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26.
Such efficiency is no virtue when it comes to lawmaking, which is why every member of Congress should be pressed to sign the pledge Hoyer was asked about. It is sponsored by a grass-roots conservative group, Let Freedom Ring, and is readily accessible online. Equally worthy of support is ReadTheBill.org, which is backed by a coalition of liberal organizations. Still another push comes from the libertarian group Downsize DC, which urges Congress to pass its proposed Read The Bills Act.
Senators and representatives who vote on bills they haven’t read and don’t understand betray their constituents’ trust. It is no excuse to say that Congress would get much less done if every member took the time to read every bill. Fewer and shorter laws more carefully thought through would be a vast improvement over today’s massive bills, which are assembled in the dark and enacted in haste. Steny Hoyer chortles at the thought of asking members of Congress to do their job properly. It’s up to voters to wipe the grin off his face.
Branch Conflict
When the Executive and Legislature Battle:
Video of Sen. Feinstein
Jan Schakowsky: Dick Cheney's program validates Nancy Pelosi
NY Times: Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project
Video of Sen. Feinstein
Jan Schakowsky: Dick Cheney's program validates Nancy Pelosi
NY Times: Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
A Question of Independence
Recent moves by the Economist, Wall St. Journal, and the Washington Post raise quesitons as to the independence of media outlets.
Access scandal echoes beyond the Washington Post
Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar
Access scandal echoes beyond the Washington Post
Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
When the Game Goes into Extra Innings
Minnesota finally has an second senator!!!
Franken is finally declared the winner.
Franken is finally declared the winner.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Politics 101: Taking on the Lobbies
Politics in Action on the Health Care Debate:
Baucus ups pressure on health groups
AARP threatens senators on health care reform
Lobbies take to the airwaves
Baucus ups pressure on health groups
AARP threatens senators on health care reform
Lobbies take to the airwaves
Politics 101: Climate Bill Fallout
Don't cross your party's leadership
Politico.com: 6/26/09
Where in the world is Ciro Rodriguez? UPDATED
After all the arms had been twisted, only two four Democrats gave their leadership an unpleasant surprise at the end of the climate change vote -- and are firmly in Pelosi-Obama doghouse:
Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Rep. Alcee Hastings from Florida, according to House sources.
UPDATE: House leadership sources add two more who reportedly said "yes" and voted "no" -- Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas).
Rodriguez had told leadership that he was a likely yes -- but then cast a quick "no" vote and practically sprinted from the chamber, frustrating floor managers whose shouts of "Rodriguez!" rang through the House as the final anxious votes were cast.
At one point, New York Rep. Anthony Weiner bounced from a huddle of leadership members and began calling the rep's name, like a wayward toddler, as he scanned the Speaker's Lobby and the adjacent balcony.
"He cast his 'no' and then ran the hell out of there," said a member of the whipping team, still steaming after the vote. "We tried him at his office and they said he was gone."
Hastings confounded Pelosi by choosing Thursday to depart for a human rights conference -- despite the pleas of the White House, who needed every vote they could muster to win the 219-212 squeaker.
A third member who has irked the powers-that-be: Rookie upstate New York Rep. Eric Massa, who voted "no" despite a photo op with President Obama. Massa has also alienated many in Pelosi's team by introducing a House pay freeze jointly with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.).
By Glenn Thrush 07:37 PM
_____________________________________________________
House passes climate-change bill
By LISA LERER & PATRICK O'CONNOR 6/27/09
Politico.com
Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.
But the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect politically vulnerable Democrats by corralling the minimum number of votes to pass the bill, 219-212, proves that there are limits to President Barack Obama's ability to use his popularity to push through his legislative agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it.
Despite the tough path to passage, the legislation is a significant win for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the bill’s two main sponsors – House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D) – who modified the bill again and again to get skeptical members from the Rust Belt, the oil-producing southeast and rural Midwest to back the legislation.
“We passed transformational legislation which takes us into the future,” Pelosi said at a press conference following the vote, after she and other leaders took congratulatory phone calls from Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“It has been an incredible six months, to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send President Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change,” said Markey, referring to world climate talks scheduled this winter.
After months of negotiations, 211 Democrats and eight Republicans voted for the bill of more than 1,200 pages, setting the legislation on a path towards the Senate. There, it faces a far more uncertain future given the opposition of key moderates and the already-heated battle over health care.
Republicans are sure to try and use against other Democrats in 2010, with accusations that they raised electricity bills for already-strapped consumers in the midst of a deep recession.
Indeed, the National Republican Congressional Committee wasted little time before blasting out a press release targeting more than two dozen Democrats for supporting “Democrats’ ongoing crusade against economic recovery.”
“I’m in a tough spot. I really am,” Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.), one of the Democrats who opposed the bill, said before the vote, citing his fears the legislation could raise energy costs and hurt the coal industry in his low-income, rural district.
“Either way I’m going to get creamed.”
Democratic leadership attempted to protect their most vulnerable freshman by cajoling yes votes from more senior members such as Lloyd Doggett of Texas.
Doggett announced his change of heart from “strong objection” earlier in the day during the final stage of the floor debate.
Doggett told POLITICO that he made his switch after speaking to Obama and having lengthy conversations with Waxman, Markey, Gore and Pelosi, but ultimately, he decided to support the bill so he could have a seat at the negotiating table when California Sen. Barbara Boxer introduces it in the Senate later this summer.
“It has been a difficult and significant decision,” Doggett said. “I just decided that I will have a better chance to make changes later in the process if I acted in good faith now. But don't think this means I'm signing off on the conference report,” he said.
When the bill passed, the chamber erupted in applause, and colleagues shook Markey and Waxman's hands. Even some Republicans clapped, mocking the Democrats for casting what they deemed a politically unpopular vote.
The vote itself proceeded with much less drama than hung in the chamber for most of the day leading up to the much anticipated roll call; Democrats looked relieved and Republicans resigned as they watched votes register on the big board above the House floor.
Fence-sitting Republicans such as Washington Rep. Dave Reichert and New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance waited to vote “yes” on the bill, in a game of chicken with moderate Democrats.
Many of those moderate Democrats, like freshman Rep. Bobby Bright of Alabama, also waited until the end of the roll call to cast votes against the package.
In the end, Democrats had the votes they needed, and many veteran moderates were able to cast votes in favor of the bill without hanging junior Democrats out to dry. One possible exception – Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil, a freshman – accepted handshakes from colleagues after casting an early vote in favor of the package.
The debate leading up to the vote was nevertheless intense.
Democrats touted the legislation as a measure that would improve national security, create jobs, protect the environment and reestablish the United States as a world leader. Republicans slammed the bill as an economic catastrophe.
“I look forward to spending the next 100 years trying to fix this legislation,” said California Republican Brian Bilbray.
“This is the biggest job killing bill that’s ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here, this bill,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner. “And I don’t think that’s what the American people want.”
Donning reading glasses, Boehner then delayed the roll call vote by reading page-by-page through a 300-page managers’ amendment Democrats added at around 3 a.m. on Friday.
Boehner seemed to relish the hour-long stunt, picking out the bill’s most obscure language and then pontificating about what it might – or might not – mean. Republicans laughed along with him and roared with applause when he was done.
The complex bill mandates a 17-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent cut by 2050, reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system. It mandates that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources and increased energy efficiency by 2020. And the legislation gives electric utilities, coal plants, energy-intensive manufacturers, farmers, petroleum refiners, and other industries special protections to help them transition to new, less-fossil fuel-intensive ways of doing business.
It will also raise electricity prices for consumers by $175 a year per household by 2020, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, significantly less than the $3,000 price hike predicted by Republicans who say the “energy tax” will increase energy bills and the cost of consumer goods.
Obama praised the House for taking a “bold and necessary step,” then wasted no time in turning up the heat on the upper chamber. “Now it's up to the Senate to take the next step. And I'm confident that in the coming weeks and months the Senate will demonstrate the same commitment to addressing what is a tremendous challenge and an extraordinary opportunity,” he said in a statement.
The White House played a significant role in drumming up support for the legislation, which is a key piece of the administration’s first-year agenda. The administration is under pressure to make significant progress towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions before the Copenhagen international climate talks next December.
A long list of Cabinet secretaries, key staffers and even Obama himself lobbied undecided members. Gore, the don of the climate-change world, spent several days calling on the fence lawmakers.
The legislation spilt both the environmental and business communities. Although environmentalists have pushed for stricter controls on greenhouse-gas emissions for more than a decade, more left-wing groups like Greenpeace wanted stronger emissions reductions and fewer protections for greenhouse-gas guzzling industries like coal. While some electric utilities, auto manufacturers, and Fortune 500 companies supported the bill, large business associations like the Chamber of Commerce argued that it would impose a crippling regulatory burden on the economy that would push factories and jobs abroad.
The House chamber took on the feeling of a momentous vote on Friday, with lobbyists, administration officials and even the stray senator –in this case, Udall – working the hallways off the floor to convince fence sitters in one direction or another. After the rule vote, Markey quickly collared Holt for a brief conversation.
“We are fond of seeing headlines that say this is the Democrats’ toughest challenge yet,” said House Whip James Clyburn, tweaking the media’s hyperbole. “Well, today that what quite true.”
He joined many other Democrats in giving the ultimate credit to Pelosi making the difference on the vote.
“Nancy Pelosi was the whip on this,” he said.
Politico.com: 6/26/09
Where in the world is Ciro Rodriguez? UPDATED
After all the arms had been twisted, only two four Democrats gave their leadership an unpleasant surprise at the end of the climate change vote -- and are firmly in Pelosi-Obama doghouse:
Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Rep. Alcee Hastings from Florida, according to House sources.
UPDATE: House leadership sources add two more who reportedly said "yes" and voted "no" -- Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas).
Rodriguez had told leadership that he was a likely yes -- but then cast a quick "no" vote and practically sprinted from the chamber, frustrating floor managers whose shouts of "Rodriguez!" rang through the House as the final anxious votes were cast.
At one point, New York Rep. Anthony Weiner bounced from a huddle of leadership members and began calling the rep's name, like a wayward toddler, as he scanned the Speaker's Lobby and the adjacent balcony.
"He cast his 'no' and then ran the hell out of there," said a member of the whipping team, still steaming after the vote. "We tried him at his office and they said he was gone."
Hastings confounded Pelosi by choosing Thursday to depart for a human rights conference -- despite the pleas of the White House, who needed every vote they could muster to win the 219-212 squeaker.
A third member who has irked the powers-that-be: Rookie upstate New York Rep. Eric Massa, who voted "no" despite a photo op with President Obama. Massa has also alienated many in Pelosi's team by introducing a House pay freeze jointly with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.).
By Glenn Thrush 07:37 PM
_____________________________________________________
House passes climate-change bill
By LISA LERER & PATRICK O'CONNOR 6/27/09
Politico.com
Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.
But the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect politically vulnerable Democrats by corralling the minimum number of votes to pass the bill, 219-212, proves that there are limits to President Barack Obama's ability to use his popularity to push through his legislative agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it.
Despite the tough path to passage, the legislation is a significant win for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the bill’s two main sponsors – House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D) – who modified the bill again and again to get skeptical members from the Rust Belt, the oil-producing southeast and rural Midwest to back the legislation.
“We passed transformational legislation which takes us into the future,” Pelosi said at a press conference following the vote, after she and other leaders took congratulatory phone calls from Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“It has been an incredible six months, to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send President Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change,” said Markey, referring to world climate talks scheduled this winter.
After months of negotiations, 211 Democrats and eight Republicans voted for the bill of more than 1,200 pages, setting the legislation on a path towards the Senate. There, it faces a far more uncertain future given the opposition of key moderates and the already-heated battle over health care.
Republicans are sure to try and use against other Democrats in 2010, with accusations that they raised electricity bills for already-strapped consumers in the midst of a deep recession.
Indeed, the National Republican Congressional Committee wasted little time before blasting out a press release targeting more than two dozen Democrats for supporting “Democrats’ ongoing crusade against economic recovery.”
“I’m in a tough spot. I really am,” Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.), one of the Democrats who opposed the bill, said before the vote, citing his fears the legislation could raise energy costs and hurt the coal industry in his low-income, rural district.
“Either way I’m going to get creamed.”
Democratic leadership attempted to protect their most vulnerable freshman by cajoling yes votes from more senior members such as Lloyd Doggett of Texas.
Doggett announced his change of heart from “strong objection” earlier in the day during the final stage of the floor debate.
Doggett told POLITICO that he made his switch after speaking to Obama and having lengthy conversations with Waxman, Markey, Gore and Pelosi, but ultimately, he decided to support the bill so he could have a seat at the negotiating table when California Sen. Barbara Boxer introduces it in the Senate later this summer.
“It has been a difficult and significant decision,” Doggett said. “I just decided that I will have a better chance to make changes later in the process if I acted in good faith now. But don't think this means I'm signing off on the conference report,” he said.
When the bill passed, the chamber erupted in applause, and colleagues shook Markey and Waxman's hands. Even some Republicans clapped, mocking the Democrats for casting what they deemed a politically unpopular vote.
The vote itself proceeded with much less drama than hung in the chamber for most of the day leading up to the much anticipated roll call; Democrats looked relieved and Republicans resigned as they watched votes register on the big board above the House floor.
Fence-sitting Republicans such as Washington Rep. Dave Reichert and New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance waited to vote “yes” on the bill, in a game of chicken with moderate Democrats.
Many of those moderate Democrats, like freshman Rep. Bobby Bright of Alabama, also waited until the end of the roll call to cast votes against the package.
In the end, Democrats had the votes they needed, and many veteran moderates were able to cast votes in favor of the bill without hanging junior Democrats out to dry. One possible exception – Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil, a freshman – accepted handshakes from colleagues after casting an early vote in favor of the package.
The debate leading up to the vote was nevertheless intense.
Democrats touted the legislation as a measure that would improve national security, create jobs, protect the environment and reestablish the United States as a world leader. Republicans slammed the bill as an economic catastrophe.
“I look forward to spending the next 100 years trying to fix this legislation,” said California Republican Brian Bilbray.
“This is the biggest job killing bill that’s ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here, this bill,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner. “And I don’t think that’s what the American people want.”
Donning reading glasses, Boehner then delayed the roll call vote by reading page-by-page through a 300-page managers’ amendment Democrats added at around 3 a.m. on Friday.
Boehner seemed to relish the hour-long stunt, picking out the bill’s most obscure language and then pontificating about what it might – or might not – mean. Republicans laughed along with him and roared with applause when he was done.
The complex bill mandates a 17-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent cut by 2050, reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system. It mandates that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources and increased energy efficiency by 2020. And the legislation gives electric utilities, coal plants, energy-intensive manufacturers, farmers, petroleum refiners, and other industries special protections to help them transition to new, less-fossil fuel-intensive ways of doing business.
It will also raise electricity prices for consumers by $175 a year per household by 2020, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, significantly less than the $3,000 price hike predicted by Republicans who say the “energy tax” will increase energy bills and the cost of consumer goods.
Obama praised the House for taking a “bold and necessary step,” then wasted no time in turning up the heat on the upper chamber. “Now it's up to the Senate to take the next step. And I'm confident that in the coming weeks and months the Senate will demonstrate the same commitment to addressing what is a tremendous challenge and an extraordinary opportunity,” he said in a statement.
The White House played a significant role in drumming up support for the legislation, which is a key piece of the administration’s first-year agenda. The administration is under pressure to make significant progress towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions before the Copenhagen international climate talks next December.
A long list of Cabinet secretaries, key staffers and even Obama himself lobbied undecided members. Gore, the don of the climate-change world, spent several days calling on the fence lawmakers.
The legislation spilt both the environmental and business communities. Although environmentalists have pushed for stricter controls on greenhouse-gas emissions for more than a decade, more left-wing groups like Greenpeace wanted stronger emissions reductions and fewer protections for greenhouse-gas guzzling industries like coal. While some electric utilities, auto manufacturers, and Fortune 500 companies supported the bill, large business associations like the Chamber of Commerce argued that it would impose a crippling regulatory burden on the economy that would push factories and jobs abroad.
The House chamber took on the feeling of a momentous vote on Friday, with lobbyists, administration officials and even the stray senator –in this case, Udall – working the hallways off the floor to convince fence sitters in one direction or another. After the rule vote, Markey quickly collared Holt for a brief conversation.
“We are fond of seeing headlines that say this is the Democrats’ toughest challenge yet,” said House Whip James Clyburn, tweaking the media’s hyperbole. “Well, today that what quite true.”
He joined many other Democrats in giving the ultimate credit to Pelosi making the difference on the vote.
“Nancy Pelosi was the whip on this,” he said.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Why is being a moderate hard?
Democrats scramble for climate bill votes
By LISA LERER & PATRICK O'CONNOR 6/25/09 8:43 PM EDT http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html#ixzz0JYL1mStO&D
Democratic leaders are working furiously to corral votes for a controversial climate change measure, hoping to build a big enough margin so that vulnerable Democrats can be freed to vote against it.
At the White House on Thursday, President Barack Obama declared: “Now is the time to act.”
Former Vice President Al Gore, who had planned to rally Democrats en masse in Washington, stayed home in Tennessee so he could press members one by one via telephone.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plied undecided members with chocolate
-covered Dove bars in a series of small group meetings. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel worked the phones, and administration officials were expected to whip members at a White House luau Thursday night.
By late Thursday, aides and lawmakers said Democrats were within a dozen of the 218 votes needed to pass the legislation. Democratic sources said their leaders aimed to lock in 230 yes votes — and leaning on key Blue Dogs such as Reps. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and South Dakota’s Stephanie Herseth Sandlin so that more vulnerable members such as Reps. Eric Massa of New York and Maryland’s Frank Kratovil can vote no.
Asked if she was confident of prevailing, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the chief deputy whip, said: “I’m not confident about anything. But I will say we are closing in on the numbers. We feel good about the way things are going today.”
Much of the support for the legislation is a testament to the work of the bill’s main sponsors, Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey, who spent months negotiating the details of the legislation to satisfy lawmakers from across the country. The final 1,201-page bill includes compromises for Michigan auto interests, Rust Belt manufacturers, Texas oil refineries, Midwestern farmers and Southeastern coal companies.
Obama highlighted those compromises on Thursday, calling the legislation “balanced” and “sensible” in a brief public statement designed to nudge undecided Democrats into the yes column.
“I urge every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, to come together and support this legislation,” he said during a brief Rose Garden event. “I know this is going to be a close vote.”
Throughout the day, undecided members leveraged their votes to lobby for additional changes to be made to the bill.
“Everyone is concerned that their region is going to get hit harder than others,” said Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. “We still have a long ways to go with this bill.”
Behind the scenes, the administration worked furiously to help the Democratic leadership garner support for the legislation. Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and other administration officials have been calling skeptical lawmakers from both parties for weeks. Energy adviser Carol Browner met with several on-the-fence lawmakers Thursday.
Emanuel met Wednesday with Kratovil and a group of other Democratic freshmen: Reps. Bobby Bright of Alabama, Jim Himes of Connecticut, Larry Kissell of North Carolina, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Mark Schauer of Michigan. Minnesota Democrat Tim Walz was invited for a Thursday meeting.
White House adviser David Axelrod explained the importance of the legislation in a morning meeting with the entire Democratic Caucus, telling the assembled lawmakers that the bill is a priority for the president. He also highlighted the legislation’s importance to independent voters and said voters would reward Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue “for governing,” according to one attendee.
During Thursday afternoon’s votes, Pelosi cruised the floor, talking to member after member. The day before, Ed Markey and a key staffer held a long conversation with Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan.
Ryan, who said he plans to vote for the bill, had some concerns about manufacturing interests in Ohio.
“This green revolution is supposed to benefit the Midwest and places like Ohio, not just California, New York and New England,” he said. “And I think they get that.”
Waxman and Markey held a series of meetings with fence-sitters late Wednesday night, calling together moderate Republicans, upstate New Yorkers, Democrats from the Ways and Means Committee and farm-state Democrats.
Members of the Democrats’ whip team hit the floor Thursday with district-by-district statistics showing that the legislation would save money for members’ constituents.
During the last votes of the day, Markey, Texas Rep. Gene Green — a very reluctant supporter — and Caucus Chairman John Larson leaned over Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar in a heated discussion until Cuellar finally shook Markey’s hand and the huddle broke up. That scene played out again and again throughout the day as Democrats felt the full weight of the White House and its leadership bear down on them.
One holdout, Pomeroy, said he’s a pretty hard “no” and seemed resistant to any external pressure.
“I’m here to represent North Dakota, and we only have one guy: me,” the senior Ways and Means Committee member said. “I know how badly the speaker wants this bill, but I have a job to do. On this one, I don’t feel any pressure at all.”
“I’d hate to be a wavering member on this one,” Pomeroy said.
Reichert, who’s getting heavy pressure on both sides of the aisle, said he’s “still in the investigative stage,” with a wry grin that suggested his vote was still in play.
Democratic leadership aides expect five to 10 Republicans to vote for the bill, including California Rep. Mary Bono Mack, who supported it in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Other Republicans that Democrats hoped would cross over include Mike Castle of Delaware, Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Dave Reichert of Washington.
Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his team are working hard to hold as many moderates as possible in order to force more centrist Democrats to back the legislation. Those efforts focused on some of the same members being targeted by Democrats, like Castle and Kirk, but also other lawmakers from environmentally friendly corners of the country, such as Wisconsin Rep. Tom Petri.
And on Thursday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) threw down the gauntlet.
“Mark my words,” he said. “The American people are going to remember this vote. This will be a defining moment and a defining vote in this Congress.”
____________________________________________________
For moderates, it's not easy being green
By LISA LERER 6/25/09 8:18 AM EDT http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24177.html#ixzz0JYMZSfZA&D
As House Democrats race toward a Friday floor vote on a controversial energy and climate change bill, moderate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are feeling a little like Kermit the Frog.
It’s not easy being green.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and about a dozen emissaries are cornering skeptical Democrats across the Capitol, warning them that a vote against the bill will come back to haunt them. Top White House officials — including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel — are calling in on-the-fence members for high-pressure meetings.
Across the aisle, Republican leaders are trying to lock down their own caucus in near-unanimous opposition — the better to make the bill, which they dub an “energy tax,” a major campaign issue in 2010.
Moderates — in both parties — are stuck in the middle of what David Wasserman, House editor of the Cook Political Report, calls a “treacherous vote.”
Here are the members who’d most like to climb under a lily pad.
The freshmen: Reps. Frank Kratovil Jr., Walt Minnick, Bobby Bright and Eric Massa
Republicans are paying close attention to how freshman Democrats from conservative districts vote on the bill. While longer-serving Democrats from Republican-leaning districts might be able to explain the difficult vote to their constituents, freshmen may not have the political experience or goodwill back home to survive it.
“Most of my constituents are saying that if you vote for this, you won’t return to Congress,” said Massa. “This is 80-20 back home.”
Freshmen are complaining that Pelosi has given them too little time to review the whopping 1,200-plus-page bill. As of Wednesday, several said they remained undecided.
Kratovil, a freshman Democrat on the Agriculture Committee who will probably find himself in the Republicans’ cross hairs next fall, spent the early part of the week reviewing changes to the bill, along with a 107-page report on the issue written by the Congressional Research Service.
“I’m looking at some of the issues that have been resolved on the Ag Committee,” Kratovil said. “I’m optimistic these issues will be resolved.”
But he’s still on the fence, saying he needs to know more details about the final bill before he will know for sure which way he’s going to vote. “For me, it’s the details,” he said.
The schemers: Reps. Charlie Melancon and Mark Kirk
Both Melancon and Kirk are eyeing statewide office, and their political ambitions are certainly influencing their votes on the bill. Melancon has all but officially declared his challenge to Republican Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). And in Illinois, Republicans are pressuring Kirk to run for Obama’s old Senate seat in 2010.
Melancon voted against the bill, which is close to a nonstarter in oil-rich Louisiana, when it was before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. With the GOP already ready running radio ads against him, he’s expected to oppose the bill again this week.
Kirk remains on the fence, saying he has concerns about the lack of funding for nuclear energy and coal interests in his state.
“We don’t want to de-industrialize Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin,” Kirk said after a meeting
with Pelosi and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) , the sponsors of the legislation.
Opposing the bill could hurt him, however, in Chicago and other more liberal corners of the state. So voting for the bill, note political observers, could indicate some serious senatorial ambitious.
The farmers: Reps. Tim Walz and Mark Schauer
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson is backing the bill after cutting a deal on Tuesday with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman — but that doesn’t mean the rest of his committee is quite as ready to sign off on the legislation.
“I did get a cordial invitation to go talk to Rahm on Thursday,” said Walz, a Minnesota Democrat, who was spotted deep in conversation with Peterson on the House floor on Wednesday but remained undecided about the bill. “We need to try and learn by Thursday, for sure, where we’re at.”
The bill is expected to pick up the endorsements of several farm and ranching associations, a fact that could give some farm-state lawmakers the necessary cover to back it. But the Farm Bureau, a major agricultural lobbying association, continues to oppose the bill as “seriously flawed.”
The Republicans: Reps. Mike Castle, Dan Lungren and Dave Reichert
Democrats aren’t the only ones who could get burned by the bill.
Vulnerable Republicans from suburban districts could also find themselves in a difficult position if they vote with their party and oppose the legislation.
Waxman and Markey held a second meeting with moderate Republicans on Wednesday, urging them to back the legislation. A vote against the legislation, Democrats warn, could later allow them to label Republican candidates as against creating new green jobs, decreasing dependence on foreign oil and transitioning to a clean energy economy.
Those arguments have resonated with at least one Republican: California Rep. Mary Bono Mack voted for the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Her Southern California district is rich with wind, solar and other renewable energy resources, making it nearly impossible for her to oppose the proposal, she said last week.
Energy producers: Reps. Mike Ross, Zack Space and Baron Hill
Although Democratic Reps. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and Rick Boucher of Virginia back the bill, their support might not be enough to convince other Rust Belt Democrats.
Some Midwestern and Southern members worry the bill could hurt coal and oil interests back home, as well as raise energy costs for already-strapped consumers.
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), who opposes the legislation, even introduced his own legislation on Tuesday that would expand oil and gas exploration.
“Energy-producing folks are going to need a good explanation back home to cast a vote for this thing,” said Wasserman. “This is a fascinating tug of war between guys like Boucher and guys like Bobby Bright, who would not support the measure over his dead body.”
_______________________________________________
By LISA LERER & PATRICK O'CONNOR 6/25/09 8:43 PM EDT http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html#ixzz0JYL1mStO&D
Democratic leaders are working furiously to corral votes for a controversial climate change measure, hoping to build a big enough margin so that vulnerable Democrats can be freed to vote against it.
At the White House on Thursday, President Barack Obama declared: “Now is the time to act.”
Former Vice President Al Gore, who had planned to rally Democrats en masse in Washington, stayed home in Tennessee so he could press members one by one via telephone.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plied undecided members with chocolate
-covered Dove bars in a series of small group meetings. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel worked the phones, and administration officials were expected to whip members at a White House luau Thursday night.
By late Thursday, aides and lawmakers said Democrats were within a dozen of the 218 votes needed to pass the legislation. Democratic sources said their leaders aimed to lock in 230 yes votes — and leaning on key Blue Dogs such as Reps. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and South Dakota’s Stephanie Herseth Sandlin so that more vulnerable members such as Reps. Eric Massa of New York and Maryland’s Frank Kratovil can vote no.
Asked if she was confident of prevailing, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the chief deputy whip, said: “I’m not confident about anything. But I will say we are closing in on the numbers. We feel good about the way things are going today.”
Much of the support for the legislation is a testament to the work of the bill’s main sponsors, Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey, who spent months negotiating the details of the legislation to satisfy lawmakers from across the country. The final 1,201-page bill includes compromises for Michigan auto interests, Rust Belt manufacturers, Texas oil refineries, Midwestern farmers and Southeastern coal companies.
Obama highlighted those compromises on Thursday, calling the legislation “balanced” and “sensible” in a brief public statement designed to nudge undecided Democrats into the yes column.
“I urge every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, to come together and support this legislation,” he said during a brief Rose Garden event. “I know this is going to be a close vote.”
Throughout the day, undecided members leveraged their votes to lobby for additional changes to be made to the bill.
“Everyone is concerned that their region is going to get hit harder than others,” said Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. “We still have a long ways to go with this bill.”
Behind the scenes, the administration worked furiously to help the Democratic leadership garner support for the legislation. Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and other administration officials have been calling skeptical lawmakers from both parties for weeks. Energy adviser Carol Browner met with several on-the-fence lawmakers Thursday.
Emanuel met Wednesday with Kratovil and a group of other Democratic freshmen: Reps. Bobby Bright of Alabama, Jim Himes of Connecticut, Larry Kissell of North Carolina, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Mark Schauer of Michigan. Minnesota Democrat Tim Walz was invited for a Thursday meeting.
White House adviser David Axelrod explained the importance of the legislation in a morning meeting with the entire Democratic Caucus, telling the assembled lawmakers that the bill is a priority for the president. He also highlighted the legislation’s importance to independent voters and said voters would reward Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue “for governing,” according to one attendee.
During Thursday afternoon’s votes, Pelosi cruised the floor, talking to member after member. The day before, Ed Markey and a key staffer held a long conversation with Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan.
Ryan, who said he plans to vote for the bill, had some concerns about manufacturing interests in Ohio.
“This green revolution is supposed to benefit the Midwest and places like Ohio, not just California, New York and New England,” he said. “And I think they get that.”
Waxman and Markey held a series of meetings with fence-sitters late Wednesday night, calling together moderate Republicans, upstate New Yorkers, Democrats from the Ways and Means Committee and farm-state Democrats.
Members of the Democrats’ whip team hit the floor Thursday with district-by-district statistics showing that the legislation would save money for members’ constituents.
During the last votes of the day, Markey, Texas Rep. Gene Green — a very reluctant supporter — and Caucus Chairman John Larson leaned over Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar in a heated discussion until Cuellar finally shook Markey’s hand and the huddle broke up. That scene played out again and again throughout the day as Democrats felt the full weight of the White House and its leadership bear down on them.
One holdout, Pomeroy, said he’s a pretty hard “no” and seemed resistant to any external pressure.
“I’m here to represent North Dakota, and we only have one guy: me,” the senior Ways and Means Committee member said. “I know how badly the speaker wants this bill, but I have a job to do. On this one, I don’t feel any pressure at all.”
“I’d hate to be a wavering member on this one,” Pomeroy said.
Reichert, who’s getting heavy pressure on both sides of the aisle, said he’s “still in the investigative stage,” with a wry grin that suggested his vote was still in play.
Democratic leadership aides expect five to 10 Republicans to vote for the bill, including California Rep. Mary Bono Mack, who supported it in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Other Republicans that Democrats hoped would cross over include Mike Castle of Delaware, Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Dave Reichert of Washington.
Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his team are working hard to hold as many moderates as possible in order to force more centrist Democrats to back the legislation. Those efforts focused on some of the same members being targeted by Democrats, like Castle and Kirk, but also other lawmakers from environmentally friendly corners of the country, such as Wisconsin Rep. Tom Petri.
And on Thursday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) threw down the gauntlet.
“Mark my words,” he said. “The American people are going to remember this vote. This will be a defining moment and a defining vote in this Congress.”
____________________________________________________
For moderates, it's not easy being green
By LISA LERER 6/25/09 8:18 AM EDT http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24177.html#ixzz0JYMZSfZA&D
As House Democrats race toward a Friday floor vote on a controversial energy and climate change bill, moderate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are feeling a little like Kermit the Frog.
It’s not easy being green.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and about a dozen emissaries are cornering skeptical Democrats across the Capitol, warning them that a vote against the bill will come back to haunt them. Top White House officials — including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel — are calling in on-the-fence members for high-pressure meetings.
Across the aisle, Republican leaders are trying to lock down their own caucus in near-unanimous opposition — the better to make the bill, which they dub an “energy tax,” a major campaign issue in 2010.
Moderates — in both parties — are stuck in the middle of what David Wasserman, House editor of the Cook Political Report, calls a “treacherous vote.”
Here are the members who’d most like to climb under a lily pad.
The freshmen: Reps. Frank Kratovil Jr., Walt Minnick, Bobby Bright and Eric Massa
Republicans are paying close attention to how freshman Democrats from conservative districts vote on the bill. While longer-serving Democrats from Republican-leaning districts might be able to explain the difficult vote to their constituents, freshmen may not have the political experience or goodwill back home to survive it.
“Most of my constituents are saying that if you vote for this, you won’t return to Congress,” said Massa. “This is 80-20 back home.”
Freshmen are complaining that Pelosi has given them too little time to review the whopping 1,200-plus-page bill. As of Wednesday, several said they remained undecided.
Kratovil, a freshman Democrat on the Agriculture Committee who will probably find himself in the Republicans’ cross hairs next fall, spent the early part of the week reviewing changes to the bill, along with a 107-page report on the issue written by the Congressional Research Service.
“I’m looking at some of the issues that have been resolved on the Ag Committee,” Kratovil said. “I’m optimistic these issues will be resolved.”
But he’s still on the fence, saying he needs to know more details about the final bill before he will know for sure which way he’s going to vote. “For me, it’s the details,” he said.
The schemers: Reps. Charlie Melancon and Mark Kirk
Both Melancon and Kirk are eyeing statewide office, and their political ambitions are certainly influencing their votes on the bill. Melancon has all but officially declared his challenge to Republican Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). And in Illinois, Republicans are pressuring Kirk to run for Obama’s old Senate seat in 2010.
Melancon voted against the bill, which is close to a nonstarter in oil-rich Louisiana, when it was before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. With the GOP already ready running radio ads against him, he’s expected to oppose the bill again this week.
Kirk remains on the fence, saying he has concerns about the lack of funding for nuclear energy and coal interests in his state.
“We don’t want to de-industrialize Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin,” Kirk said after a meeting
with Pelosi and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) , the sponsors of the legislation.
Opposing the bill could hurt him, however, in Chicago and other more liberal corners of the state. So voting for the bill, note political observers, could indicate some serious senatorial ambitious.
The farmers: Reps. Tim Walz and Mark Schauer
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson is backing the bill after cutting a deal on Tuesday with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman — but that doesn’t mean the rest of his committee is quite as ready to sign off on the legislation.
“I did get a cordial invitation to go talk to Rahm on Thursday,” said Walz, a Minnesota Democrat, who was spotted deep in conversation with Peterson on the House floor on Wednesday but remained undecided about the bill. “We need to try and learn by Thursday, for sure, where we’re at.”
The bill is expected to pick up the endorsements of several farm and ranching associations, a fact that could give some farm-state lawmakers the necessary cover to back it. But the Farm Bureau, a major agricultural lobbying association, continues to oppose the bill as “seriously flawed.”
The Republicans: Reps. Mike Castle, Dan Lungren and Dave Reichert
Democrats aren’t the only ones who could get burned by the bill.
Vulnerable Republicans from suburban districts could also find themselves in a difficult position if they vote with their party and oppose the legislation.
Waxman and Markey held a second meeting with moderate Republicans on Wednesday, urging them to back the legislation. A vote against the legislation, Democrats warn, could later allow them to label Republican candidates as against creating new green jobs, decreasing dependence on foreign oil and transitioning to a clean energy economy.
Those arguments have resonated with at least one Republican: California Rep. Mary Bono Mack voted for the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Her Southern California district is rich with wind, solar and other renewable energy resources, making it nearly impossible for her to oppose the proposal, she said last week.
Energy producers: Reps. Mike Ross, Zack Space and Baron Hill
Although Democratic Reps. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and Rick Boucher of Virginia back the bill, their support might not be enough to convince other Rust Belt Democrats.
Some Midwestern and Southern members worry the bill could hurt coal and oil interests back home, as well as raise energy costs for already-strapped consumers.
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), who opposes the legislation, even introduced his own legislation on Tuesday that would expand oil and gas exploration.
“Energy-producing folks are going to need a good explanation back home to cast a vote for this thing,” said Wasserman. “This is a fascinating tug of war between guys like Boucher and guys like Bobby Bright, who would not support the measure over his dead body.”
_______________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)