December in Iowa?
August 10th, 2007 – 10:01 AM by D.J. TiceTalk about the “permanent campaign”! ’08 could be closer than you think, according to this story in the Des Moines Register.
67 Responses to "December in Iowa?"
On MPR’s story on the subject last evening (during drive time), the reporter made the comment that some are predicting these calendar changes to the primary will make it impossible for non-rich candidates to participate in the primary process. The theory is apparently that right now, a campaign without much money can effectively compete in Iowa & New Hampshire and have a chance to eventually win the nomination. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong, but it seems like this ship sailed long ago.
The end result of this change might be good. There’s already talk of throwing out the ‘traditional’ process that gives Iowans, New Hampshirites & South Carolinians undue impact on the process in favor of a system that alternates which region of the country ‘goes first’ in the process. Its unclear if this would be a real solution, but I have to think that throwing out the current system is a good first step.
at the rate also-ran states are shifting their primaries/caucuses/straw votes/auctions forward, we’ll choose the 2012 nominees before the 2008 ones.
IMHO we need to go the other way. hard. fast.
a Federal law that primary activity can’t be started until June in the year of the election would find favor right now.
unless there’s a groundswell for mid-October of a presidential election year… we out in the hustings, those with the votes, are just freakin’ fed up with having to choose between Huckleberry and Tancredo 16 months before the election.
I long for the “old days,” when electioneering before Labor Day was just NOT done…
swschrad: Would you define “primary activity” for me? Would it include barring visits to the early states (currently Iowa, New Hampshire) from POTENTIAL candidates? Or simply no “formal” politicking allowed?
I don’t think it really matters – odds are the dems will lose again. I bet they will nominate the person with the highest negative ratings. (Sounds like a winning strategy!!) It will be almost as much fun as listening to them complain how President Bush outsmarted them the last two elections.
What powers did the surveillance bill give to the executive branch again? Can you say legalizing the “illegal wiretapping”? As Rep. David Wu (D-Oregon) describes the bill: “makes Alberto Gonzalez the sheriff, the judge and the jury.”
Thanks dems for finally supporting the right side. God bless Nancy Pelosi!
And what will CNC be saying when a Democratic president appoints an AG who is the “sheriff, the judge, and the jury”? Bush is setting a precedent. If you weren’t such an extreme partisan CNC you’d realize that it’s a very bad precedent.
say….his own brother, for example….
Ditto in New Hampshire.
NH primary won’t be later than Jan. 12
By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
I’d define it as going anyplace and saying, “I’m running for President and I need your vote.”
I’m sure we’d have a whole slew of trips sorta-arranged to colleges and high schools in which the astute statesperson E. Pluribus Fogbound comes to regale innocents with wonderful tales of how a simple idea in the political arena changed the world. no collections allowed and no bumper stickers permitted, of course.
but that’s really low-percentage political activity, and doing the rubber-chicken circuit without getting names and checks would wear thin really fast, so there wouldn’t be all the effort on it that is burning, in McCain’s case, over 100 million in a half year.
I picked up that RFK referrence. Your point, that the precident is long set, is a good one. I don’t want to speak for Dora, but I personally say we should reverse rather than reinforce the precident of using the office of the AG as the president’s personal “reinterpreter”.
I’m currently reading “The Dark Side of Camelot” by Seymore Hersh.
People on the right have not been too happy about Hersh and his reporting on Bush foreign policy, but this book clearly shows Hersh is no left-wing hack.
It’s a great read. I recommend it highly. But I also recommend anything he’s published in New Yorker in the past decade.
My goodness. GBNP was something I didn’t think I’d see.
Can we talk about the White House finally enforcing existing immegration law?
On the topic, I love the politics. I’m all for constant campaigns.
I don’t think additional people will tune out as a result. I think possibly someone trying to tune out will accidentially become informed if we keep barraging them with information 24-7. Eventually, the candidates will run out of on message remarks and say something that actually engages people – again, if only by accident.
The money is a huge problem, but I think it needs to be dealt with independently.
I think the biggest problem is that Minnesota still isn’t first. When the states compete against one another in any area, the states that don’t play lose.
I hope the presidential candidates begin to discuss the following:
War is “repulsive, immoral, uncivilized, and futile.”
–John Mueller
Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies, The Ohio State University
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
“We will never forget the lessons of 8-1-07″
December in Iowa. It is virtually here.
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=1016524
Too many states pull a fast one on primary
By Dale McFeatters
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Mr. Tice:
What’s going on here today with the Big Question web page formatting? The page is scattered all around my computer screen like a Sunday morning newspaper scattered around the living room.
You believe in the private sector; threaten to fire someone if they don’t fix it up, double-quick.
Also there was a printing error in your Post/Riposte column the other day. My name (“Bill Prendergast”) and comments appeared below those of commenter 6th District Jim. It should have been the other way around. Please look out for that in the future.
And if you are kind enough to “promote” any of my posts in the future, please print my whole name (“Bill Prendergast”) instead of the abbreviated name “Bill P.” I sign my whole name to the posts and I do not abbreviate your full name to “Doug T.” or “Douggie T.” or “the Fabulous Mr. T.”
Bill, here is that info you ranted on earlier. BTW, Michelle is still waiting for your apology:
“Minnesota Democrats Exposed’s Michael Brodkorb is having quite the conversation with the St. Cloud Times. In a story about the House working on federal aid for the bridge disaster, St. Cloud Times reporter Pamela Brogan wrote, ‘Earlier in the day, [U.S. GOP Rep. Michele] Bachmann and Republican [U.S.] Rep. John Kline had voted to adjourn the House before it approved the federal aid.’ That’s true, but so did the Minnesota Democratic members of the Minnesota delegation and the vote was procedural–the House was reconvening the next morning. Contextually, in the story, the statement is outrageous. The mystery is why the St. Cloud Times doesn’t just say, we goofed.” Source: Politics In Minnesota Weekly Report, August 10, 2007
When will this pork BBQ ever end- shouldn’t we be spending OUR money on bridges?
so much for the most ethical, moral, transparent senate in history
Democrats, Pelosi said, “intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history”.
I wanted to make sure I got the quote right.
OT, (does that stand for “Off Topic”, this time?)
If you stop by Dump Bachmann, you will read articles on how Michael Brodkorb is madly spinning this one this week and ever since the GOP partisan vote to adjourn without funding the emergency aid for the bridge.
Here’s what the fuss is about, as I understand it. On Friday, August 3rd, at about 1:30 pm congressman from Florida named Hastings warned his colleagues that he was going to move to suspend the rules to permit emergency aid to Minneapolis in the wake of the bridge disaster. He also warned his colleagues that failure to vote to consider the emergency funding would delay aid to Minnesota:
Hastings:”Without this amendment and this rule, this legislation will not be
permitted to proceed; and these emergency funds would be delayed.
Realize a vote against this rule and my amendment to the rule will be a
vote against providing this emergency assistance to the people of
Minnesota, specifically Minneapolis, Minnesota.”
At 4:28pm there was a motion to adjourn Congress (without voting the emergency funds to Minnesota.) One hundred and seventy nine Republicans voted to adjourn without voting the emergency funds to Minnesota. (Remember that this was when the rescue and recovery effort in Minneapolis was still in progress.) But the GOP vote to adjourn was defeated by the House Democrats.
Among the Republicans who voted to adjourn without a vote on the emergency funds for the bridge were MN Reps. Bachmann and Kline.
At 5:14 p.m. there was a procedural vote about how to conduct debate affecting Iraq and the FISA law governing intelligence gathering. But this vote also affected whether Congress would stay in session and vote emergency funds for the Minnesota bridge disaster. The vote was on House Resolution 600, which included the following provision:
…(3) A bill to authorize additional funds for emergency repairs and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007, *to waive the $100,000,000 limitation on emergency relief funds* for those emergency repairs and reconstruction, and for other purposes.
(the emphasis is mine.)
This vote was the vote that Rep. Hastings had warned colleagues about earlier. A successful “nay” vote would have delayed the emergency funds.
Unfortunately, this vote was also divided along partisan lines. All Democrats who voted (except one) voted “yea†on the measure; all Republicans who voted (except one) voted “nay.†That means: all the Republicans who voted (except one) voted not to permit the House to consider emergency legislation appropriating $250 million to begin the reconstruction of the I-35 bridge.
The Republicans were defeated and the resolution was passed by a vote of 228-196, with eight representatives not voting.
About 6:30 pm, the House voted to send the bridge money to Minnesota.
Both the GOP and the Dems ended up voting for the emergency funds. The point is that if the GOP had prevailed earlier on their partisan vote to adjourn that day, there wouldn’t have been a vote to provide emergency funds in the House that day. The overwhelming number of GOP Congressmen–not just Bachmann and Kline from our state–joined together in these partisan votes; but the Democrats made them stay until they had all voted on the emergency funding.
That reflects horribly not only on Bachmann and Kline, but on the entire GOP, nationwide: the bodies were still being pulled out of the river, but they simply had to play their partisan game of “we don’t want to work on Friday.”
And the GOP will be coming here to Minnesota, next year, for their national convention–and they’ll still be showing that footage of the collapsed bridge. Can you see now why Brodkorb and the GOP activists are peeing their pants this week, to spin that partisan GOP vote in response to the tragedy here? If it becomes widely known that the first response of a GOP Congress to an ongoing tragedy was a partisan and mindless “we don’t want to work five days a week vote to adjourn” the position of the Republican party in this state can decline even *further.*
That’s why Republican blogs like MDE were screaming when the St. Cloud Times actually dared to report Bachmann and Kline’s partisan votes to their readers. The Strib and PiPress (I believe) didn’t report them at all, but the truth about the votes appeared prominently in the St. Cloud paper–and that much truth is way too much truth for the Republicans to handle.
And as long as the thread has been hijacked to talk about the bridge and the pork:
It should be noted that Strib reporters Mark Brunswick et al wrote a very good short piece on the political history of trying to get funding for Minnesota infrastructure. http://tinyurl.com/33cbw9
Brunswick did a fine job there, and he also did a good piece here on the recent special election, too. Only one criticism: not enough funny Latin! Heh heh, just kidding, Brunswick.
Hey OT, don’t forget to get this quote right too. Bush, Jan 22, 2001: “I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems.”
And Repubican Rep. Don Young of bridge to nowhere fame said on the House floor that he was proud of his earmarks.
Like Bill pointed out, there is good pork and bad pork. It is expected that Senators and Representatives pass legislation that benefits their districts. The problem is identifying when it goes too far.
This issue does not belong to just one party. Pretending it does is simply blind partisanship at work.
“This issue does not belong to just one party. Pretending it does is simply blind partisanship at work.”
You ain’t kiddin’. Remember the Republican Revolution of 1994? Those guys were coming in with Contracts with America for more effective government, and they went out last year with more BS earmark/pork spending on BS projects in a twelve year period than Dems ever dreamed of in a similar twelve year period. Look at the energy bill they passed, it was notorious for useless crap appended. And that’s just one example
“Bad pork” is bipartisan. You have to expect the partisan types like OT to point out the opposition’s pork and turn a blind eye to their own.
And OT–as for me “apologizing” to Bachmann or Kline for *their* partisan votes to hold up emergency funds for the Minnesota bridge collapse–there is a special procedure for obtaining such an apology:
Bachmann, Kline, and the other one hundred and seventy seven Republican congressmen–who voted not to suspend the rules and permit the $250 million in funding, and voted to adjourn without voting the emergency money–must line up in alphabetical order and kiss the cheeks of my white a55 during the seventh inning stretch at the Metrodome while they play “The Star Spangled Banner”, if they want an apology from ME because THEY were playing pointless stupid partisan games while people like you were working on a dangerous rescue and recovery operation in Minneapolis.
You complete the necessary paperwork, book the Metrodome and then get back to me.
Bill,
You have to admit the the democrats have been much more wasteful with taxpayer money than the republicans. An example is paying welfare recipients to have additional illigitimate children. This is simply rewarding irresponsiblilty and creates many more problems such as increased crime.
dare2–
I don’t defend the right of healthy people who won’t work to receive my tax dollars. But at the same time I think it’s unfair of you to say that Democratic “plan” is to “pay welfare recipients to have additional children.” I never saw any Democratic convention where someone was carrying *that* sign.
As for Democrats being more wasteful with taxpayer money than Republicans–well, first of all, they’ve had a lot more opportunity to waste taxpayer money; they ran the Congress from the 1930s to the 1990s. The Republicans came in ridiculing Dem waste and promising to do better on protecting taxpayer money. After only twelve years in power they went out with an equally deplorable record on earmarks and rotten pork.
So no, I’m not going to concede that the Dems are worse on the waste of money issues than the Republicans.
The GOP had the chance to show what it could it do, and it seemed to be striving to as badly in the corruption and waste departments as the Dems. They made suckers out of the voters who voted for them because they thought the GOP and conservatives were going to a more honest, efficient government with less waste. That’s not just me talking, it’s career conservatives like Viguerie.
Waste is a bipartisan disease; the only real police dog we have on the case is the media, and they don’t seem to be doing a very good job of policing.
“dare2sayit.com says:
August 12th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
You have to admit the the democrats have been much more wasteful with taxpayer money than the republicans.”
Oh, BS.
Direct cost of Iraq War so far: $450,000,000,000.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
“We will never forget the lessons of 8-1-07″
And,
“Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.”
–Richard Viguerie
MB
C’mon Bill, you wouldn’t even say it wasn’t right when I posted about dems voting for welfare, housing and food stamps for illegals. You could not bring yourself to say it was wrong.
Dora, I also think both parties waste too much money, but since your dems are in charge right now- they get the blame presently.
Bill, I think you left out the part that said the dems from mn also voted for adjournment.
St. Cloud Time reporter Larry Schumacher has a new post about the passage of the 35-W bride repair relief package that was sponsored in the U.S House by Congressman Oberstar and co-sponsored by Walz, Kline, Ramstad, McCollum, Ellison, Bachmann, and Peterson.
Due to a confusing article from the St. Cloud Times and behind-the-scences maneuvering by Democratic operatives, two “Dump” blogs are continue to make the claim that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman John Kline chose partisan politics over the interest of Minnesota by voting for a procedural motion to adjourn before final passage of the 35-W bridge repair funding package.
In his latest post, Schumacher concedes that I was correct on many points in my last post on this subject.
Below is my fisking of Schumacher’s latest post.
Schumacher: He says, “Second, he’s [Brodkorb] correct that adjornment wouldn’t necessarily have meant indefinite postponment of a vote on the bridge bill. There’s a mandatory 18-hour cap on how long they can adjorn. What he doesn’t acknowledge (among other things) is that Congress was on its way out the door for a month of quality time in their home districts. The bridge bill was one of the last things they had on their plate, and there’s no guarantee they would have come back to the bill before they left D.C. for a month.”
Reality: Yes, there is a guarantee. It’s the Constitution. Congress cannot adjourn for more than 3 days without a concurrent resolution passed by the House and Senate. At a maximum, a motion to adjourn ends business until the next legislative day, which is specified in House Rules as 9am Saturday. It’s not possible that a motion to adjourn would’ve led the House into the recess. I don’t understand Schumacher’s point, unless he’s hypothesizing that Congress wouldn’t have considered the aid bill Saturday if the motion passed (here, he’s proven wrong again because the House still considered another version of HR3311 Saturday). Also, if Schumacher wants to play the “hypothetical” game, the Speaker can call the House into session at any time. For example, Speaker Hastert called the House into emergency sessions twice in 2005. First on March 20 to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo and again on September 2 to provide aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina None of this is relevant, though, because Schumacher’s point is wrong.
Schumacher: “Yes, it did not turn out to be the final vote, but they wouldn’t know that until the Senate amended it later that evening. By then, I suspect many of them were home. Probably packing.”
Reality: Personally, I would challenge Schumacher to prove it because he can’t. If you feel like getting into the weeds, the Senate called Roll Call Vote number 310 at 9:37 p.m. and moved immediately into consideration of Senator Coleman’s amendment to HR 3311. The House motion to adjourn wasn’t called until 9:39 p.m.. Certainly Senator Coleman drafted his amendment in advance of going to the floor. Would Schumacher like to charge that Senator Coleman didn’t notify Chairman Oberstar or the other members of the Minnesota delegation that he was amending the bill? I think not.
Read this to see how pathetic the Washington Post is. It really is pretty low for a supposed newspaper to sink.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/11/AR2007081101204_pf.html
OT–
This is what I mean about Brodkorb and the GOP peeing their pants on this vote.
1) Brodkorb started out telling you that they ALL voted to adjourn. And they did–but the Dems didn’t vote to adjourn until AFTER the emergency funds were voted to Minnesota. The GOP voted to adjourn WITHOUT voting the funds for the Minnesota bridge. Do you SEE the difference between the two votes? Why do you think that Michael Brodkorb is trying to pretend that there is NO difference between 1) voting to adjourn BEFORE/WITHOUT securing emergency funding for the bridge (like the GOP did) and 2) not voting to adjourn until AFTER you’ve secured emergency funding for the bridge (like the Dems did.)
Why do you think Michael Brodkorb, local Republican spin meister is trying to pretend that there is NO difference between those two votes? Do you think that Michael’s argument that those two votes are the same is an “honest” argument? Or do you think that Michael and the local GOP are having some kind of panic attack after virtually every Republican in Congress voted to adjourn Congress without voting emergency funds after a bridge here collapsed–and that fact made its way into one of the local newspapers?
I vote for the “Michael is having a panic attack” theory. If you go through the Congressional Record and look at the timeline on the votes that day in Congress, you will see that the GOP did vote to adjourn without funding the emergency money. You will see their failed attempt to do that, and you will the Democrats overrule them.
If you look at Brodkorb’s argument with Schumacher, you see Brokorb’s failure to address the timeline, the remarks on the floor of the House, and these votes. Instead Brodkorb goes into these rather silly explanations of what could have happened or might have happened or what they might have been thinking–rather than what actually happened. What actually happened is something he’d rather not discuss.
Those votes are there, on the record, and they’re not “merely procedural”–if the national GOP had had its way, the Congress would have adjourned without voting emergency funds for Minnesota, and it is not for Michael or anyone else to say when the emergency funds would have been approved. Fortunately adjournment did not take place at that time–because Democrats overruled Republicans.
Another sign of desperation is that Michael Brodkorb is actually taking MY advice, printed on the Dump Bachmann blog. When his initial attempts to “spin” the GOP partisan votes on his blog and others failed (comments pointing out the logical flaws in Brodkorb’s spin “went missing”), I advised Michael to go “behind the scenes ” with his spin. I told him he should go to GOP friendly media; they would print any nonsense he offered about the partisan votes of the GOP, Bachmann and Kline. I recommended he contact Kersten of the Strib and Westover of the PiPress, but apparently he ended up on the doorstep of Sarah Janacek of Politics in Minnesota.
Not a bad choice; she’s GOP and she’s smart enough to understand the importance of killing the facts about this story now, before the GOP convention gets here. So she prints Michael’s version, uncontested–claiming the St. Cloud Times “goofed” in reporting that Bachmann and Kline voted to adjourn before the aid was voted to MN. The problem is: the St. Cloud Times didn’t “goof.” To claim that they did is a lie; they simply reported votes that were also recorded in the Congressional Record and the Washington Post.
These are desperation tactics by GOP activists–but that doesn’t mean they won’t work. You certainly believe them, OT, despite what the facts indicate. So lots of other people will believe them, too, if they scramble their considerable media resources in MN. They can make you guys believe black is white, if it protects the a55 of the Republican Party. But it’s a story in itself to see how they do that, isn’t it?
And it’s a lot of pressure on me, personally. They’re so desperate they’ll even take advice from me. Me, a liberal independent voter, pulling the strings behind the scenes to tell paid Republican activists how to spin a scandalously partisan anti-Minnesota GOP vote in the local media.
I’m only helping them out of the goodness of my heart. If the Dems take these votes and make them into a 30 second ad spot next year, these GOP guys will have strokes or something.
Mr. Tice, pardon me if I’ve missed it, but there seems to be a story in these preceding posts. I know the paper’s resources are thin, but perhaps there is an AP version available.
the story is that the nation is basically split down the middle, and spitting bile at the opposite viewpoint.
that’s been covered. the dead horse has been flayed, and the flies have even been mashed.
BTW, since the topic is not posted, yet, Karl Rove.
you know, these new-fangled tele-phones, the wire Internets, and all these other big city gadgets mean that ol’ Karl is just holing up in cowboy country. he’ll still tell Bush when to breathe.
just like Dracula, he can’t stand the light of day. so he’s hiding out.
that’s all the announcement means.
as a bonus, allows him to “consult” with presidential aspirants without scrutiny. The Machine Lives.
http://www.nysun.com/article/60377
Skip Iowa Next Time
By RYAN SAGER
August 13, 2007
swschrad and RoyinOslo–
That’s right, Karl Rove announced he will resign.
But in Minnesota and at the Strib and PiPress, the news dynamic for the Rove resignation story is the same as for their failure to cover the Bachmann/Kline/GOP votes to adjourn without emergency aid for the MN bridge:
“Should we report it in our papers, boys?” ask the editors of the Strib and the PiPress. “It makes the Republicans look bad…”
Never mind: the St. Cloud Times will probably print something about the Rove resignation.
Ha ha ha, laughed Bill, sarcastically and bitterly.
“Bachmann/Kline/GOP votes to adjourn without emergency aid for the MN bridge”
And the point is? Both Bachmann and Kline spoke on the House floor in support of such measures. This is simply trying to make a mountain out of garbage. It is the typical political nonsense of trying to make a procedural vote mean sound like a policy vote. Both parties do it but only fools believe that it is meaningful.
“Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to add my thanks to all of our colleagues here in the House, the Minnesota delegation certainly, and, of course, as Mr. Ramstad said, to our dean, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
While reports continue to be updated due to the ongoing recovery operations, the number of victims is already shocking to us in Minnesota. But these numbers are not simply statistics that might roll off the tongue as a footnote to a tragedy which Governor Tim Pawlenty accurately described as, quote, a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, these numbers are people. These numbers are the family, friends and neighbors who were simply going home to their loved ones after what appeared to be just another workday. Among the deceased is a mother of two from Savage, Minnesota, in my congressional district, and my heart and prayers go to her family and to all the victims.
Although this is a time of sorrow for many, there are countless stories emerging already about the generosity and compassion of the citizens of Minnesota. From organizing blood drives and volunteers, to caring for the needs of the recovery workers, Minnesotans are going above and beyond the call of duty.
Mr. Speaker, as the citizens of Minnesota have come together during this difficult time, my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation and I remain committed to helping restore the I-35W bridge. Together, we’re working to provide the Federal resources necessary to recover from this tragedy, and the fine effort brought forward by our chairman, Mr. Oberstar, putting forth $250 million is so important to us in Minnesota.
In the wake of this disaster, it is difficult to imagine when all the questions will be answered, but the day will come when recovery efforts will be complete, investigations will conclude, and eventually a new I-35 bridge will reunite the banks of the Mississippi River.
Mr. Speaker, again our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims and their families and with all Minnesotans as we recover and rebuild. Again, I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, for authoring this legislation”
” Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
In what feels now like a lifetime ago but was in fact only 2 days ago, on August 1, the world changed forever for the people of our State of Minnesota. Our people witnessed an event so unlikely, the sudden and complete collapse of nearly 2,000 feet of eight lanes of highway, propelling nearly 50 cars in midair for a horrific 60-foot plunge into the currents of the Mississippi River. An event so unlikely that we in Minnesota collectively remain shocked and filled with sorrow, knowing the inevitable sad news that is yet to come once our heroic first responders have freed our fellow Americans who even now as we stand here remain trapped underwater.
Minnesota needs the help and the prayers of all Americans and we appreciate the overwhelming support in our time of need. I know I speak for my husband Marcus and myself. We offer our deepest sympathies, as does everyone in our delegation, to the family and the friends of those who were killed.
Mr. Speaker, America believes in extending a helping hand to people who are in trouble due to no fault of their own, and I want to assure the residents of Minnesota today that we will have help in cleaning up and rebuilding. We will have help until the job is done. Because Congress understands, Republicans, Democrats, we’re all Americans in this and we understand that this is not just an emergency for a day or for a week. We will provide the support and the work that is necessary to rebuild the lives and the communities that were damaged until this tragedy is over. And that is what makes America so great.
This bill is just our first step toward recovery. I thank Chairman Oberstar for his brilliant work, working around the clock to bring this to the floor. It’s inspiring the way so many have come together and worked together over these last few days.
I join my colleagues from Minnesota, a great State that each one of us loves so much, in requesting your support to rebuild this bridge. Once again, I know we can count on you, the Members of this great deliberative body, to rebuild the great city of Minneapolis and again to make it whole. “
And, to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of making these claims, consider the Congressional record.
On motion from Rep Hoestra the House voted on adjournment. On a party line vote the nays carried the vote, with Bachmann and Kline voting yea. After recess the House took up the MN Funding measure and the FISA measure.
After this and some other business another vote for adjournment was taken. This time on basically a party line vote the YEAS carried. But BACHMANN AND KLINE VOTED NAY on that measure.
You’re right, mark, this is trying to make a mountain out of garbage. The votes of nearly two hundred GOP congressmen (including Bachmann and Kline) joined in a partisan vote to adjourn Congress without voting emergency aid to Minneapolis.
Thank you for posting the fine, inspiring words of Kline and Bachmann. But you forgot something. You forgot to include the time-stamp; the time at which they spoke those fine inspiring words.
Was it BEFORE they voted to adjourn Congress without securing emergency aid for the bridge disaster; or was it AFTER the Democrats beat down their vote to adjourn and made them stay in Congress and vote funds for the emergency aid for the bridge disaster.
Surely Bachmann was right when she said
that we could “count on on the Members of this great deliberative body to rebuild the great city of Minneapolis and again to make it whole.“ Unfortunately the record also shows that Bachmann and Kline of Minnesota could be counted on to play their mindlessly partisan games and vote for adjournment without first securing bridge emergency funds.
It’s not what they say, Mark, it’s how they voted. And they did voted the bridge emergency funds to Minnesota that day, but that’s because the Democrats made them stay in session that day and vote on it. If the GOP had had its way that Friday, they would have gone home without voting the emergency funds to Minneapolis. And it’s not me who says that–it’s the GOP votes that say that.
C’mon Bill, you wouldn’t even say it wasn’t right when I posted about dems voting for welfare, housing and food stamps for illegals. You could not bring yourself to say it was wrong.
OT–
I’m still on this bridge thing in Congress, I’ll get back to you some other time about Dems and welfare.
Anyway–
Mark went to considerable trouble to track down the Bachmann and Kline remarks about how important it was to get emergency aid to Minnesota two days after the bridge collapsed.
But Mark didn’t include the time that those remarks were made. I looked it up in the Congressional Record. As I suspected it turns out that Bachmann made her stirring remarks about the importance of obtaining federal emergency aid–after she and Kline had already voted to adjourn Congress without obtaining the aid.
The House Democrats beat down that partisan GOP vote to adjourn without approving the aid. Bachmann was able to stay in Congress that day and make her inspiring remarks about bipartisanship because Congressional Democrats had overruled her earlier partisan vote to adjourn *without* voting the funds for the bridge emergency.
On August 3rd, the GOP (including Bachmann and Kline) had already voted to adjourn Congress at 4:28pm. The Bachmann remarks quoted by Mark were made just before 6pm. Thus, she would not have gotten to make those inspiring remarks (or vote in favor of emergency aid to MN) that day if she and her political party had won their partisan vote to adjourn early, at 4:28pm, while the search and rescue effort was still underway in Minneapolis.
You can spin it, and spin it, and spin it, but what kills the spin is the timeline. That’s a matter of record. If want to defend the GOP’s idiotic partisan games during a Minnesota crisis–include the dates, the times that votes and pretty speeches occurred.
–And the stirring remarks made by Congressman Kline about the importance of “working together” to get emergency federal funds for bridge disaster were made some time after 5:45pm–about an hour after Kline had joined his party in a partisan vote to adjourn Congress without voting the emergency money for the bridge disaster.
Partisan games, blind GOP partisan games, while the divers are searching the waters of the Mississippi for bodies. It was a disgraceful episode in the history of the GOP Minnesota congressional delegation and the GOP nationally in Congress. Of they course they would like to pretend it doesn’t exist; but the votes are there, nontheless, and so their calls for bipartisanship seem hollow and cynical.
Again, this is a ridiculous point to even make. It is trying to make a procedural issue a policy issue.
Notice, at no point is Mr. Pendergrast or any of the other polemicists at Bachmann Underground indicating that Bachmann or any of the other Minnesota Congressional delegation OPPOSES any emergency funding.
Instead of that, they are implying the same because of her vote on a procedural issue.
If the Yeas and Nay voting on adjournment is so important, why did Ms. Bachmann and Jon Kline vote NAY in a subsequent motion to adjourn?
Further, these were simple motions to adjourn.
Further, if you examine the COngressional record you will notice there were 3 motions to adjourn. Heather Wilson submitted the first motion to adjourn based upon the premise that the House was waiting on information before proceding with a vote. Because of the voting maching problems this vote was nto actually taken and the House recessed.
After recess the same issue came up. Rep. Hoekstra asked for unanimous consent for a recess until feeback on the FISA bill could be obtained.
Rep Alcee Hastings objected to this unanimous consent. Upon that objection Rep. Hoekstra moved for an adjournment of the House. This motion would have meant that the House would have simply ended business for the day. The Democrats overcame that motion with a NAY vote and the HOuse continued on its business.
In case you do not know, every business day in the House ends on a similar motion to adjourn.
For example, on August 2nd there was a similar motion to adjourn in the middle of the day. Michell Bachmann and Jon Kline voted YEA on that and this motion was likewise defeated.
Again, the people trying to make partisan hay out of this are the people making this claim.
Their claim is that an essentially meainingless procedural vote has some deep meaning. It does not, and only total fools believe it. My guess is that even Bill P. does not believe that any of this is significant, except for the fact that they can fool some people.
You are doing what a lot of GOP apologists are doing right now, Mark–bringing up a lot of irrelevancies about other votes and other issues and other votes to adjourn that really don’t bear on the issue at hand.
Answer me this:
1) Why would Congressman Hoekstra and nearly two hundred members of the GOP call for a partisan vote to adjourn after Congressman Hastings had already told Congress that they needed to stay and vote emergency funds to Minnesota in the wake of the bridge tragedy? Why would anyone in his right mind conduct a partisan vote like that, if the emergency was ongoing and the President had already made headlines by announcing that he would approve the money?
2) If Bachmann and Kline understood that fast tracking $250 million dollars in emergency funds to Minnesota that day was as important as they later said it was–WHY did they join their GOP colleagues in a partisan vote to adjourn Congress without first obtaining that money? Why did GOP Congressman Ramstad refuse to join a partisan vote to adjourn without obtaining emergency funds for the bridge disaster?
I don’t think you or any other rank and file Republican can explain that; I think that Bachmann and Kline have the responsibility to explain their votes that day–*all* their votes, not just the vote to adjourn.
You wrote:
“Rep. Hoekstra moved for an adjournment of the House. This motion would have meant that the House would have simply ended business for the day. The Democrats overcame that motion with a NAY vote and the HOuse continued on its business.”
And there’s the problem–why the hell was Hoekstra, or any Republican, moving to adjourn business for the day without voting emergency funds to MN? That’s a stupid, insensitive, irresponsible thing to do, when there’s an ongoing emergency and they’re still fishing bodies out of the river. And why did nearly all Republican and nearly no Democrats join him in that stupid, insensitive, irresponsible motion to adjourn?
Of course Bachmann and Klein weren’t opposed to getting that money for Minnesota. The point is that they and the rest of Congress *wouldn’t* have got the chance to vote that money to Minnesota *if Bachmann and Klein and the GOP had had won the earlier vote and adjourned for the day.* That sends a horrible message to people of Minnesota and the first responders–”a bridge may collapse in Minnesota, cars may plunge into the river and Minnesotans may die or risk their lives to keep people from dying–but we will still play our pathetic, pointless little GOP partisan games, even as we preach about a bipartisan response to the disaster.”
What’s ridiculous is mindless GOP hacks like Klein and Bachmann touting the virtues of bipartisanship an hour after they joined a partisan GOP move to adjourn–which, according to you, would have finished business and prevented them from getting emergency money for the state at once.
The reason that you can claim the GOP vote was “merely procedural” was that the GOP *lost* their vote to adjourn without sending emergency money. If they can be grateful for one thing this week, it’s that the Democrats voted them down and made them secure the bridge money before allowing them to go home.
“Why would Congressman Hoekstra and nearly two hundred members of the GOP call for a partisan vote to adjourn after Congressman Hastings had already told Congress that they needed to stay and vote emergency funds to Minnesota in the wake of the bridge tragedy?”
Because they were working on the FISA bill and wanted to receive additional information from the Director of Homeland Security.
“The point is that they and the rest of Congress *wouldn’t* have got the chance to vote that money to Minnesota *if Bachmann and Klein and the GOP had had won the earlier vote and adjourned for the day.* ”
But this is just ridiculous. It simply would have moved the business to the NEXT day. So what? What are you claiming?
These motions to adjourn were the normal procedure for ending business of the house for the day. Simple as that.
Anyone who claims that the motion to adjourn was any type of procedure to PREVENT a vote on emergency funding is a total fool or a liar. IF they do not realize the actual facts of the case and really believe that a motion to adjourn was a motion to kill or even delay emergency funding for a significant amount of time is a fool, too stupid to even really to be listened to.
If on the other hand, they know that the terrible delays they claim are just poppycock but press this issue anyways, they are simply liars. In my opinion, Bill P. is a liar. He knows nothing that he implies is true but continues to press this case anyways.
And, for all of the Dump Bachmann crowd out there, if this vote for adjournment means what you mean, why did Michelle Bachmann and John Kline vote for adjournemnt BEFORE the FISA vote was taken?
QED.
Don’t bother, Mark the BDS is rampant and incurable. I wonder if they were as equally disgusted with Harry reid a month back when he mad them spend a better part of a week talking about Iraq pullouts and then he votes with the repubs ( strictly a “procedural” vote).
Notice that Mark didn’t answer my questions.
1) “Why would Congressman Hoekstra and nearly two hundred members of the GOP call for a partisan vote to adjourn after Congressman Hastings had already told Congress that they needed to stay and vote emergency funds to Minnesota in the wake of the bridge tragedy?”
Mark tried to answer that one (they wanted more info on the FISA bill), but his answer is partial, and leaves out the fact that Congress was also voting on this at the same time:
H. Res. 600
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
August 3, 2007.
…(3) A bill to authorize additional funds for emergency repairs and reconstruction of the Interstate I-35 bridge located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that collapsed on August 1, 2007, to waive the $100,000,000 limitation on emergency relief funds for those emergency repairs and reconstruction, and for other purposes.”
That’s what it says; it’s there in the Congressional Record–but Mark and the GOP spin guys do not want to address that. They want to pretend that this particular partisan vote was just about FISA and the Iraq war: it wasn’t, it was on suspending the limitations on the emergency funding to get $250 million to MN–and Bachmann and Kline and the rest of the GOP voted “NO.” A matter of record, Mark.
2) “Why would anyone in his right mind conduct a partisan vote like that, if the emergency was ongoing and the President had already made headlines by announcing that he would approve the money?”
Mark would not touch that question, and he was right to stay away from it. It would destroy his fragile world view to acknowledge the truth: that the GOP engaged in their usual partisan vote to go home on Friday–even when there was a disaster in the Minnesota. The GOP simply does not want to be there on Mondays and Fridays; they are notorious for complaining about that. They hate the fact that Pelosi makes them work more than three days a week; they complain about it regularly. So they vote to go home–even if it’s emergency funding, even if it’s been fast tracked by the President himself. (And by the way, OT, that’s why this is not an instance of what you call “Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)”. Here’s an instance where the President gets it *right*, for once, says he’ll send emergency funds to MN–and it’s the GOP *Congress* trying to screw things up with their stupid partisan games.)
3) “If Bachmann and Kline understood that fast tracking $250 million dollars in emergency funds to Minnesota that day was as important as they later said it was–WHY did they join their GOP colleagues in a partisan vote to adjourn Congress without first obtaining that money?”
Mark didn’t want to touch that one, either. He cites Bachmann and Kline’s big speeches about “how important getting that money is”, but fails to note that the big speeches about “how important voting on that money is” would not have been given if Bachmann and Kline had prevailed earlier and adjourned. I’m much more impressed by the fact that these two partisan legislators voted to adjourn and voted against suspending the limit on emergency funds for Minnesota–than I am by their big speeches on the importance of bipartisan response to an emergency, given after their partisan response to go home.
Why did GOP Congressman Ramstad refuse to join a partisan vote to adjourn without obtaining emergency funds for the bridge disaster?
Mark didn’t want to explain that one, either. And he couldn’t; he can’t say what Ramstand was thinking when he voted against a partisan move to adjourn, any more than he can explain why Bachmann and Kline voted FOR a partisan move to adjourn without getting bridge emergency money. It may be that Ramstad was thinking with his “great big non-partisan big head” and Bachmann and Kline were thinking with their “tiny little partisan little heads.” We won’t know why they did what they did, until they try to explain it–but they won’t try to explain it unless the media 1) reports it and 2) asks them about it.
Finally Mark: it’s not what I *imply* that it’s important, it’s what the record shows. The record shows GOP Congressmen (including two from Minnesota) reacting in a mindless partisan fashion in response to a disaster affecting American people. People can draw their own conclusions about whether that’s a “good thing or a bad thing,” whether that matters or not.
The Democrats did the GOP a *favor* by refusing to let them go home that day without voting the bridge funding. If the Democrats hadn’t overruled the GOP and made them stay, Bachmann and Kline would have got their way–they would have gone home for the day without the emergency funds, and the press would have REALLY chewed their ass off for voting to adjourn.
But as it is, we can only speculate on what they were thinking: “oh, we can always deal with that “bridge thing” tomorrow… I suppose… the important thing is to vote with GOP to go home for the day, now…that’s my party’s position, we shouldn’t have to work Fridays, bridge money, schmidge money…oh, poop! the Dems are going to MAKE us stay? In that case, I better make a speech about how important it is that we ACT right NOW to help the people of Minnesota.”
“Mark tried to answer that one (they wanted more info on the FISA bill), but his answer is partial, and leaves out the fact that Congress was also voting on this at the same time:”
And, this is a ridiculous claim. Voting on this “at the same time”? Absurd.
Instead of listening to someone lie like Bill P consult the Congressional record.
Here is the first motion to adjourn, made by Heather Wilson of New Mexico, who is the chief sponsor of the FISA revision bill.
Ms Wilson first requests unanimous consent to recess until the Director of Intelligence can provide some information. Alcee Hastings objects, upon which Ms. Wilson moves that the House adjourn (meaning ends business for the day, THAT DAY). They ramble on about some issues because of the voting maching problem.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=H9668&position=all
After a bunch of chatter about voting procedure Rep Hoekstra asks for the same unanimous consent to recess. Alcee Hastings again objects. Hoekstra then moves that the House adjourn.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=H9672&position=all
All of this is in the record. The meaning behind the entire process is very clear. The adjournment motion was meaningless.
“The Democrats did the GOP a *favor* by refusing to let them go home that day without voting the bridge funding. If the Democrats hadn’t overruled the GOP and made them stay, Bachmann and Kline would have got their way–they would have gone home for the day without the emergency funds, and the press would have REALLY chewed their ass off for voting to adjourn.”
Again, this is ridiculous. IT is sad that someone continues to spew such nonsense. An adjournment would not make any difference on this issue.
“reacting in a mindless partisan fashion in response to a disaster affecting American people. ”
And again, this is ridiculous. There is nothing partisanship about it. THe motion to adjourn HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EMERGENCY FUNDING. NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH.
The Democrats control the scheduling of votes. The Emergency Spending bill would have come up whenever they wanted.
So, the Bill’s entire claim is that a one or even a few days at that, delay in voting on the Emergency Spendign Bill would have made a difference. THink about that claim and how ridiculous it is.
Uh-huh mark, I’m sure everybody would have thought how meaningless it was if they would have adjourned without voting on the emergency spending bill for the just collapsed bridge. I’m sure while we were watching and reading about the rescue and recovery people would have just shrugged their shoulders and said, oh well, they can vote on it in a few days. Think about how ridiculous your claim is.
Mark:
“Their claim is that an essentially meainingless procedural vote has some deep meaning. It does not, and only total fools believe it. My guess is that even Bill P. does not believe that any of this is significant, except for the fact that they can fool some people.”
As I remember it, the 2004 election result came out of certain people making hay out of a procedural vote – something one candidate voted for before he voted against, or vice virce?
I’d say, even if your point is correct that this is not such a big deal as Mr. Prendergast makes it out to be, turnabout is fair play, isn’t it?
“And again, this is ridiculous. There is nothing partisanship about it. THe motion to adjourn HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EMERGENCY FUNDING. NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH.”
I love it when Mark starts screaming and going all inarticulate. He calls me a liar–that’s a hot one! And he directs people to the Congressional Record (which I am quoting from.)
Mark, it’s the Congressional Record that’s the trouble, for these Republicans. If you want to save their reputations, you should be directing people AWAY from the Congressional Record. The record is their *problem*; that’s what they can’t walk away from.
mark wrote:
“So, the Bill’s entire claim is that a one or even a few days at that, delay in voting on the Emergency Spendign Bill would have made a difference. THink about that claim and how ridiculous it is.”
And that’s what I hope Bachmann will say, if anyone asks her about the GOP votes to adjourn and refuse to raise limits on emegency spending. I hope that if that issue is raised, she says what you say: “At most, my vote and the vote of my Republican colleagues would have delayed the emergency funds a few days. The Democrats control the scheduling, they would have forced us to vote that money for the bridge collapse, eventually.”
It’s the plain truth, and God, I hope she’s stupid enough to make the argument you’re making here, Mark.
Love,
Bill Prendergast
Dump Bachmann
Again, the claim is ridiculous unless you are claiming the the motion to adjournment presented in the House first by Heather Wilson and then by Hoekstra was a motion to adjourn the House forever.
Further, the absurd claim that this motion to adjourn was meant to delay or prevent a vote on emergency funds and for that matter the FISA bill can only be believed by total morons. If you think the Republicans wanted to recess without a winning vote on FISA changes then you are an imbecile (or is a moron smarter than an imbecile).
Guess what the TRUTH IS, even if the motion to adjourn would have carried, they would have met the following day.
“As I remember it, the 2004 election result came out of certain people making hay out of a procedural vote – something one candidate voted for before he voted against, or vice virce?”
As I said in previous posts, this type of game is played all the time. The utilization of procedural votes to imply some sort of policy implication is a very common game in politics.
However, the reason why it is effective is that very stupid people will believe these meaningless charges.
In this thread the people making these claims seem to actually believe the validity of them. They think there is some policy implication involved.
And, for the Kerry issue that is something that was handed on a silver platter. In fact, John Kerry never made the distinction between a procedural vote. “I voted for it right before I voted against it” is manna from heaven.
It isn’t like making a claim that John McCain voted AGAINST breast cancer research based upon some phony reading of Congressional votes and counting some procdural vote like a policy vote.
Lets see here, Senator McCain voted AGAINST a motion to reconsider, so therefore he is AGAINST breast cancer research. Clever, my kind of politics. But meaningless all the same.
Again, Bill P. and anyone else who makes these claims of importance can only be fools or liars. Like I said, I am pretty certain Bill P. knows how ridiculous the charges are but is interested in making the political rhetoric so he is a liar. Dora, on the other hand, truly believes and is certainly just a fool.
“Again, Bill P. and anyone else who makes these claims of importance can only be fools or liars”
And, if anyone wants to call me a hypocrite because in a campaign I would utilize such tactics, great.
Anyone who thinks that they can run a poltical campaign without lying is totally naive. You lie all the time.
Consider Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a liberal, but he governed as a conservative. Inside accounts of the Clinton years in office are chock full of his people moaning that they were nothing but Eisenhower Republicans worried about the bond market and running a balanced budget. To govern, and remain in power, they had to lie to themselves and the people that these were their chosen policies.
Likewise for my own personal experiences, eveyr campaing I have been associated with has been adamently pro-life. I acted as if I was a pro-lifer. I presented information, wrote speeches, and presented media that indicated that the candidate I knew was actually pro-choice was a died in the wool pro-lifer.
That is the way politics is played. It is sleazy. You have to be able to manipulate. You have to essentially lie on many things.
Is this terrible? Not really. The essential policies beliefs are not lies. Bill Clinton believed he was doing his best for the country, so the little political lies he told, like campaigning on a “middle class tax cut” are not that big of a deal.
SOme people, like Justin Adams are in some ways admirable because I know that he campaings strictly on what he believes, and (for all I know) strictly on the issues. However, is it admiralble to be defeated? Is it really admirable for the important issues that Justin cares about to be unrepresneted because he will not budge on less important issues to increase his overall appeal to the voters? I don’t think so.
Finding a candidate that can appeal to a winning coalition on every issue is virtually impossible. In most cases they have to abandon some of their own personal political preferences so that the other issues that they deem to be of much higher priority will be enacted.
One of the best examples of this is the political career of George Herbert Walker Bush. Bush was one of the most liberal candidates in 1980, Democrats included. He was pro-choice and pro-ERA. His economic policies were strictly country club Republican and his attacks on Reagan’s economic policy were perhaps the most effective ever (“Voodoo economics” and such).
Yet, when he became Reagan’s vice president he abandoned all of these issues. I don’t blame him. His alternatives was to be marginalized and ignored.
And yet mark, you didn’t address the substance of what I said. Well of course not, when you can’t refute a comment you call the commenter names.
“And yet mark, you didn’t address the substance of what I said”
Because you don’t present any substance. WHO CARES. Michelle Bachmann and John Kline both supported the emergency bill. THey would have voted for it WHENEVER it was presented for a vote.
The procedural motion to adjourn HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DELAYING OR NOT IMPLEMENTING SUCH A BILL AND ANYONE WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE IS A COMPLETE MORON.
Again, I totally understand the political attempt at trying to smear someone. The game of trying to imply that procedural votes means something about policy is as old as politics itself.
But the problem is that you can’t fool all of the people, and it is ridiculous to cling to this as an issue.
Well, you see Mark, I’m not as convinced as Michael Brodkorb of MDE and Sarah Janacek of Politics In Minnesota that it IS a big issue. But they are sure acting like it is.
The past week or so GOP activists have been doing their damnedest to refute or at least muddy the story of bridge emergency money votes–and to try to discredit the St. Cloud Times for reporting how two local GOP congressmen voted on that matter.
They can’t get the St. Cloud Times or the Washington Post or the Congressional Record to run a correction, because that is how Bachmann and Kline and the GOP voted on the bridge emergency money. So what the state GOP is reduced to doing is arguing that the news media shouldn’t have *reported* those votes. Which is, of course, ridiculous.
I think that in the grand scheme of things, this a relatively minor matter which may be thrown up to Bachmann, Kline and the GOP next year at their national convention here.
And I don’t know if the state’s Democrats have the organization and brains to turn it into the kind of 30 second ad I’m talking about. They probably should, as a matter of strategy, because it will force the GOP to explain its partisan voting in response to a tragedy–and that’s a GOOD thing, to force Bachmann and Kline to explain their votes, the way that you are trying to do here and other GOP defenders are trying to do elsewhere.
I’m afraid you also have to reconcile these two statements, both made by you in this very thread:
mark at 4:33pm:
“(The partisan GOP vote to adjourn without sending emergency funds) simply would have moved the business to the NEXT day.”
mark at 9:26pm:
“The procedural motion to adjourn HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DELAYING OR NOT IMPLEMENTING SUCH A BILL AND ANYONE WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE IS A COMPLETE MORON.”
At 4:33pm Mark is arguing that the GOP motion to adjourn would haved delayed the emergency funds til the next day; at 9:26pm Mark is arguing that anyone who makes such an argument is a complete moron.
Don’t be so tough on yourself, Mark. As for the charge of partisan games by the GOP at a time of emergency being a “smear”–it is not a “smear” to accurately report the votes of Congress as they were cast, in the order they occurred.
This is the way your party voted, it’s a matter of public record, and you are defending them by saying that Democrats would have certainly forced Republicans to address Minnesota’s need for emergency funds, sooner or later. That’s certainly true, but it doesn’t reflect very well on Bachmann, Kline or the GOP–does it?
Again, WHO CARES. You are continuously trying to imply that the YEA vote on a motion to adjourn has some form of policy meaning. It does not.
The trivial “DELAY” and “dont be so tough on yourself bs is also meaningless. That you have resorted to word play only indicates that your position has no merit.
If you want to go on record and claim that moving the vote from 3 Aug to 4 Aug is something meaningful that anyone should be interested, go ahead. I am sure you can get Dora, Michael B and Pantheon to agree with you. Of course, they have the combined intellect of a mouse. But, then that is the purpose of the claims, to get easily swayed, non-thinking people like that to agree with such nonsense.
I have seen this trick played over and over, and usually it is effective. However, this claim is so weak that not even the Strib will run with it. THink about that. Maybe that should be your first indicator as to how weak your claims are.
WHO CARES, Mark asks.
Well, I care. You care, you’re certainly spending a lot of time trying to explain these votes away (and not doing a very good job, I must say.)
Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed cares. He spent a lot of time trying to kill this story, this week. Sarah Janacek of Politics In Minnesota cares; she insisted that the St. Cloud Times “goofed” in reporting the Bachmann and Kline votes (even though they didn’t; they accurately reported the votes that were cast.)
It’s strange, but most of the people who care the most about these votes and how they will be intepreted are GOP supporters. This evening I read the first LTE on the subject, sent to the St. Cloud Times, in support of the Bachmann vote to *keep* the lid on the amount of emergency aid Minnesota could receive in response to the bridge tragedy.
The state’s Republicans are acting like they *do* care about this matter. Deeply. Personally, I think that’s a mistake–if I were them, I’d be trying to downplay these votes by Republicans–instead of calling attention to them in the blogs and in the media. If they keep arguing this issue publicly, voters are going to start demanding that Bachmann and Kline explain their votes and the votes of their GOP colleagues–publicly.
And I don’t think you want that, if you care about the chances of the GOP next year. If you’re right and no one really cares, you should just stop talking about it, Mark. It’s bad political strategy to call attention to partisan voting in response to the bridge tragedy.
You’ll note mark that I ridiculed your assertion that people would have thought it was meaningless if Congress would have adjourned without passing the emergency spending bill.
With your vast knowledge of politics you realize that perception is everything and you know that people would not have thought it meaningless. So you ignore what I actually said and attribute something I didn’t say to me.
I’m shocked, just shocked, that you would do that mark since you are so rigorous in making sure you are accurate in your representation of what others here say. Or maybe not.
“With your vast knowledge of politics you realize that perception is everything ”
AND I HAVE NEVER DISAGREED WITH THAT ASSERTION EITHER. I have made the statement, several times in fact, that this type of politics is very common. That is, the attempt to imply that a procedural vote is a policy vote. This trick is used because it can be effective because idiots like you believe the stories.
“Michelle Bachmann voted in a partisan way to DELAY the Emergency Funding Bill for rescue operations after the bridge collapse.”
That is your story and that is what you believe. Stick to it.
The truth of the matter is that the story is meaningless. AS you state Dora, the basis of the story is mere “perception” of gullible people like you that can be manipulateed in such ways. That is why politicians utlize this trick. It is an illusion, but many people are fooled by such. You and Bill P. prove the point over and over again.
SOme people, like Justin Adams are in some ways admirable because I know that he campaings strictly on what he believes, and (for all I know) strictly on the issues. However, is it admiralble to be defeated? Is it really admirable for the important issues that Justin cares about to be unrepresneted because he will not budge on less important issues to increase his overall appeal to the voters? I don’t think so.
Well, first off, that’s very kind but too romanticised. I didn’t campaign very hard on my views about the drug laws, for example.
Second, I am very likely to compromise certain heartfelt positions (for example the fact I believe the two party monopoly is anethma to actual democracy) in favor of having a seat at the table. This must be the particular one of my issues to which you refer – having not sought the DFL nomination for the state house seat condemned me to lose the race.
And not seeking the DFL nomination in the first place was less than a fully principled decision. Sure, it was consistant with my principles, but I might have thrown them under the Wellstone bus had I thought I could win the nomination from the incumbent.
Probably not, though, because it would have cost my district two committee chairmanships. But this considers that the incumbent and I are generally on the same page ideologically (with a few exceptions), even if I do find him somewhat lackluster at times.
If my district were represented by someone I really thought was doing a terrible job, then more means could be justified by the ends.
This time around, I’m probably sitting out the election, working for a DFLer, and I’ll just wait for the incumbent to not seek re-election. When he does, I’ll have to compromise my position on the badness of the two parties, because it’s impossible to influence decisions if you’re not at the table.
The important point is whether you truely believe in the goodness (to the people you represent) of the policies you are aiming to influence by whatever means necessary, or if you merely wish to be at the table so that you can yield power as an end of itself (bad) or towards ends which contridict the actual (as sometimes opposed to perceived) interests of your constituents (worse).
yield… that should be wield power… not yield power. Who would want a seat just to yield power?
You continue to sidestep the point, mark, which is that most people would not have dismissed it as meaningless. Whether they wouldn’t because they are gullible has nothing whatever to do with it.
” which is that most people would not have dismissed it as meaningless”
And I don’t care aout what “most people” would find. IT IS MEANINGLESS, POINTLESS, and LESS-LESS. The procedural vote to adjourn had nothing to do with funding, supporting funding, delaying funding, or trying to do anything to the funding bill.
The Representatives that you are trying to claim did something negative in a paritisan way totally supported the emergency funding. TO claim otherwise, or to imply some sort of negative aspect is totally ridiculous.
Whether this ridiculous “issue” has any political effect is to be determined. I am going ot repeat, for about the 20th time, you can fool very dumb people with this type of claim. It is a standard political trick and has been done many times even in recent history. Dora obviously has been fooled, proving my point.
well mark, since I haven’t said a word about what I think of that vote it’s comical that you claim I’ve been fooled. The most you can claim about what I’ve said is that I’m wrong about perception being everything but you didn’t. In fact you agreed with me.
Your first post speaks for itself:
“I’m sure everybody would have thought how meaningless it was if they would have adjourned without voting on the emergency spending bill for the just collapsed bridge. I’m sure while we were watching and reading about the rescue and recovery people would have just shrugged their shoulders and said, oh well, they can vote on it in a few days”
There you go. That is more than perception. You totally agree with the premise. Sorry, but your own words haunt you.
poor mark is having those pesky recurrent reading comprehension problems again. As I said previously, I was ridiculing your premise that it wouldn’t have made any difference. I didn’t say what, if any, difference it made to me. My comment implied that it would make a difference to some people. That’s obvious by reading it. You want to dismiss those people as gullible. It makes no difference whether they are gullible or easily fooled. The reason that it’s a standard political trick is because it works as you yourself have agreed. You’re reaching in your pathetic attempt to discredit me by saying it worked on me.
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1184)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)