Blog @ MoreWhat.com

If anyone cares to offer a compelling argument to explain the results of the following roll call vote it would be appreciated. The only condition for the argument is that it does not offer political strategy as an excuse.

While the GOP would like to be viewed as the loyal opposition to the Democratic party’s far left agenda some Republicans defy explanation for their voting choices. The roll call vote presented here deals with earmarks. Senator DeMint offered an amendment described as an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. More than a dozen members of the GOP voted to table the amendment along with the Democrats. One Democrat, Russ Feingold from Wisconsin voted ‘no’ with most Republicans. But that may be due simply to political considerations in a re-election year.

That DeMint’s amendment clearly limited the earmark moratorium to 2010 and 11 should have made it easy for anyone to support it given current economic conditions. If you cannot support what may amount to nothing more than a symbolic gesture of disapproval for wasteful government spending how serious can you be about reducing the national debt and deficits? Earmarks are reported to account for ‘only’ a tiny amount of government spending. But eight or nine billion dollars per year is real money to most people. Money that could be used to solve real problems that get postponed due to lack of funding. How’s that for twisted logic?

It is understood POLS regularly tout their ability to direct federal taxpayer dollars to their respective states. You can visit many websites of Congressional members of either party listing all the, let’s face it, PORK, they provide their constituents. But isn’t it really a select number of constituents? Isn’t this simply more election campaigning and vote buying sponsored by the American taxpayer?

This sort of thing needs to stop. It may explain in part the popularity of what some call the Tea Party Nation. The GOP and even the Democratic party should adopt measures like the one Senator DeMint introduced mentioned earlier. It is just common sense. And it would go along way to convince the public that politicians are actually serious about controlled spending, deficit reduction and retiring the national debt.

And it could all be done without the political risk of attacking the real problem. Entitlements like the latest healthcare legislation or the majority of the annual budget that is, go figure, entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Barry from DC’s homeland security princess, Janet Napolitano, first stated the US national security system worked in referring to an attempt to detonate explosives on board a US airliner landing in Detroit on Christmas. Today she is stumbling over herself to produce damage control for her previous appraisal. No doubt this is taking place at the ‘urging’ of others in the Obamanation.

But let’s not focus only on the Obama Administration’s reaction to a failed terrorist attack. Failed only because the terrorist fortunately botched the assignment. Members of the US Congress are equally disappointing in their response to the event.

from the House Committee on Homeland Security…..

The reported act of terrorism – whether directly related to al Qaeda or not – and the response to it will be the focus of an oversight hearing next month. The Committee will get to the bottom of what did and did not happen with Mr. Abdulmutallab and what security precautions need to take place in the future.”

from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security….

WASHINGTON - Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., announced Monday that they would convene a hearing in January to examine the layers of security meant to protect airline passengers from terrorist attacks but which accused terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab successfully evaded.

Hearings scheduled for January!!! So this is how are fine leaders respond to dropping the ball on national security. Not to worry folks, your elected and appointed leaders are on the job. They’re not concerned enough to interrupt their Christmas and New Year’s plans to deal with security breaches so you should not worry either. Just continue as before….. clueless.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Open thread: Obama’s statement on the Christmas Day jihadi attack; Perfunctory, hasty, and bloodless (Michelle Malkin)

A brief time out for a news break to see where the hell we are today. One could say Joe Lieberman won after the Dems took away a subcommittee chairmanship but left him as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Conventional wisdom says Obama pressured Dems including Harry Reid to do what it takes to keep Joe Lieberman in the Dems caucus for his vote. Rush Limbaugh just stated his opinion that Lieberman will grovel to stay in the Dems good graces. This blog has a different take. The Dems as well as the GOP do not know for sure how the undecided Senate races will play out. While there may be other Senators who could consider switching sides in the aftermath to adjust the majority, Lieberman remains a wild card. To defect from the Dems to the GOP now would be premature as the Senate majority may not reach supermajority after the remaining races are decided. Don’t be surprised if Lieberman becomes a Republican if a supermajority results from the outcome of the other Senate races.

The 42/13 vote favoring keeping Lieberman in his Senate chairmanship raises a question. 42 Dems were either going to vote to keep Joe or were feeling pressure from the President-elect or some combination of those two scenarios. The question is how the 13 who voted against him will vote on subsequent issues in the Senate? Depending on what Senate Dems view as necessity between loyalty to their base or brokering deals with the President-elect it is reasonable to expect the performance of Congress and their approval rating from this point forward will mirror that of the 110th Congress or dismal.

Another good point expressed by Limbaugh today was Congressional posturing with the bailout scams. They gave carte blanche to Hank Paulson in hopes of looking good regarding the economy and other financial matters. Now that their bills including oversight have come under fire along with Paulson the ’spectator’ Congress is scrambling for cover and likely searching for scapegoats to take the heat.

This blog has long held Presidents have little effect on the markets or the economy with few exceptions. Granted, a President can effect a day or week’s trading by statements or actions originating from the White House but they usually have about the same effect as published earnings reports for bellwether stocks reported on a quarterly basis. That could be extended to economic reports such as the PPI, CPI, jobs, etc. But one still has to wonder what the impact was over the 2008 campaign reality that the next President would be either Obama or McCain with a marginally different layout in Congress after the dismal performance between the 110th and the Bush Administration beyond the success of the troop surge in Iraq?

As there always is, there will be winners and losers in the public and private sector including ‘main street’ and the public at large while the major issues play out over the next year or two. Besides obsessing over possible extreme and lasting outcomes of the current economic climate in this country it is likely the nation will survive this latest test. The question is will we learn anything from it and act differently in the future? As an addendum to this post, few seem to be analyzing the actions of other countries to the current global economic ‘meltdown’ in terms of the US response thus far. All seem to be injecting cash into the situation or in other words throwing good money after bad just like the US. What does this say about the allegation we are becoming more socialist in our approach to solving problems? Or is it just that Hank Paulson was in a position to assist those he knows on Wall Street and took it? Not like Congress would mind sharing in that effort. After all, how many of them were in part responsible for the subprime mess that started it all?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts 

It is the GOP’s turn now. After the little bounce that Obama received for the DNC, reported by the MSM as the smallest in many years and now shrinking, his attack dogs focusing on Sarah Palin’s family has given the news cycles away and off whatever message Obama might have. While Obama and Biden try to distance themselves from the Democratic party’s personal attacks on Sarah Palin and family one is reminded of the Clinton precedent to leave children out of it. Something the left, including the MSM has abandoned this time around.

So the RNC is turning the party vs party debate to issues that matter. President Bush point out ’staying on offense’, stopping attacks and preventing another as he has since 9/11. The left’s central talking point is hope and change and not wanting four more years of the GOP. How much hope can you have that their change would prevent another attack on American soil. For all the opposition criticism of President Bush, we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. And the terrorist setup for that attack happened on President Clinton’s watch. The 9/11 Commission, often mistakenly cited by Pelosi as a plus for Dems, clearly demonstrates the docudrama ‘The Path to 9/11′ is true. The Clinton Administration dropped the ball and dropped 9/11 is President Bush’s lap. And some want them back in the White House in the form of Barack Obama and their foreign policy guru Joe Biden who was part of the Clinton terrorist debacle?

And as for the left’s attacks on Sarah Palin, including the MSM, the real reason they are upset by McCain’s VP pick is while they claim Washington is broken and requires something other than Washington insiders, Obama picked politics as usual Biden and McCain opted for someone not beholding to the Beltway. McCain and Palin both share the ability to ignore party politics to get things done. In contrast, Obama began his political career with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, other Hyde Park lefties and the Chicago political machine of the Daly variety. He has picked politics as usual and reinforced that with Joe Biden regardless of what his campaign claims. That is why they are upset about the defections of Joe Lieberman, the Maverick McCain and his running mate conservative reformer Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Earlier on this blog it was suggested in another post that the RNC needed substance not rhetoric. While some rhetoric in a political campaign is almost required, as long as it does not dominate the message certain allowances can be made. But as the article below demonstrates, speakers are presenting the fact that national security and defense has been successful during the Bush Administration as evidenced by no attacks since 9/11 and victory in Iraq. The so-called ‘maverick’ approach that has been a central theme of McCain’s history and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin will correct any departure from conservative principles on limited government, fiscal restraint and traditional values.

These are the things that keep Barack Obama up nights. If you view his campaign from the primaries it is clear that all three candidates, Clinton, Edwards and Obama stressed the far left agenda. All three touted the DNC, Reid and Pelosi slogan of a New Direction for America. You got the 2006 midterm Congress you asked for and their approval rating as well as their agenda are in the tank. And some want to continue that into 2009 and beyond. You’ve got to be kidding.

For all the slick marketing and rock star image making, Barack Obama is more of what the last paragraph described. With the GOP ready to correct the mistakes of the current administration yet continue its successes, trading for the empty hope and change of Obama would be tragic. As a guide, just remember the disgusting display of MoveOn and the fringe left against the troops and General Petraeus while the main three Dems candidates stood by and did nothing. Agreeing by their silence they would have accepted defeat and surrender. Not something anyone should accept. Yet they did. And they will in the future. If you don’t want that for your family, the choice is obvious.

For all their faults, the Republican Party has kept this nation safe. Without that all other issues are moot. This blog believes the choice is clear. If you have an opinion, share it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Republicans Attack Democratic Policies at Convention

By Dan Robinson
St. Paul, Minnesota

Robinson report - Download (MP3)
Robinson report - Listen (MP3)

Republicans put their convention back on track Tuesday in St. Paul, Minnesota, with a televised satellite address from U.S. President George Bush, and speakers who praised the character of Republican nominee-to-be John McCain, while sharply attacking Democrats. At the same time, controversy about McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate continues to grab headlines, as Republicans rallied behind her and prepared to formally nominate their candidates on Wednesday and Thursday. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports. President Bush used a 10 minute satellite address from the White House to praise Senator McCain, citing his defense of the military surge in Iraq, and describing him as someone who will protect Americans from further terrorist attacks:”We live in a dangerous world. And we need a president who understands the lessons of September 11, 2001: that to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen, and not wait to be hit again. The man we need is John McCain,” he said.

Tuesday’s speakers brought a change in atmosphere, as Republicans escalated criticisms of Democrats and McCain’s Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Joe Lieberman, now an Independent who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in the 2000 presidential race, said he was appearing in support of McCain because, as he put it, “country matters more than party.”

Senator Joe Lieberman at Republican convention

Lieberman has drawn criticism from Democrats in Congress for his strong support of Senator McCain and President Bush’s Iraq policies, and had this sharp criticism of Democratic presidential nominee Obama.

“When others were silent about the war in Iraq, John McCain had the guts and the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq. When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, which would have been a disaster for the U.S.A.,” said Lieberman. “When colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion, advocate the surge, support the surge and because of that, today America’s troops are coming home, thousands of them, and they’re coming home in honor.”

John Boehner, Republican minority leader in the House of Representatives, accused House and Senate majority Democratic leaders of doing little to solve American’s energy and other problems. Representative Michele Bachmann sounded a traditional Republican theme of less government:

BOEHNER: Washington today is broken and the Democratic Congress is its most visible symbol.

BACHMANN: Government is not a philanthropic organization. Government is not the family. And government certainly is not the church.

Fred Thompson, former senator and television actor who ran an unsuccessful campaign for the presidency, sought to emphasize McCain’s credentials as a maverick who does what he thinks is right, regardless of what others say.

“He has been to Iraq eight times since 2003. He went seeking truth, not publicity. When he travels abroad, he prefers quietly speaking to the troops amidst the heat and hardship of their daily lives. And the same character that marked John McCain’s military career has also marked his political career. This man, John McCain, is not intimidated by what the polls say or by what is politically safe or popular,” he said.

While Republicans want to turn the focus of news headlines back to the main work of their convention, formally nominating McCain as their presidential candidate, he and his advisors are still battling questions about how thoroughly they examined Sarah Palin’s background before choosing her as a running mate.

Chosen for her social conservatism and anti-abortion stance among other things, she revealed this week that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter was pregnant, a fact Senator McCain says he knew. She is also the subject of an investigation in Alaska involving firing of a state official.

McCain advisors insist she was thoroughly vetted, and have provided journalists with details of the process. But media organizations quoted unidentified Republican party sources as saying Palin was not seriously considered until a week or so before McCain announced the selection.

McCain was pressed again on the issue during a campaign appearance in Cleveland, Ohio. “My vetting process was completely thorough and I am grateful for the results,” he said.

McCain’s Democratic rival, Barack Obama, says family matters should remain personal and not be mixed with politics, a view shared by Obama’S running mate, Senator Joe Biden. “I have a simple proposition. Children are off limits. Children are off limits.”

Senator McCain has predicted that Palin’s appearance at the Republican convention on Wednesday to accept the vice presidential nomination will help excite Americans about her candidacy. Republican delegates and others attending the convention expressed continued support for her and applauded McCain’s choice.

With a family history of military service as well as his own service to country and years as a prisoner of war it should have surprised no one when Senator John McCain announced he would be spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. That a number of others from Congress and the Governor of Utah joined Senator McCain on the trip, beyond the obvious sentiment of support for the troops, is a welcome departure from the continued opposition of the Democratic party and base for victory in Iraq. Senator McCain’s record and determined support for the US military does not suggest a political motive for this trip due to his Presidential campaign. He has always supported the troops so there is no need to play games on this topic.

While you can disagree with any of the members of this group on various topics or issues, there are no grounds for opposing unconditional support for the men and women who protect and preserve this country’s freedom and democracy. To oppose them for political gain is a travesty and those who do should be ashamed of themselves. To compound that shameful behavior by continuing to oppose victory for the mission in the face of remarkable achievements only confirms the harmful nature of such opposition. Kindly take your cues from the information provided from the members of this Congressional delegation who serve their country’s best interests by the actions taken this Thanksgiving and their honorable support of the troops.

SENATORS MCCAIN, LIEBERMAN, GRAHAM, CHAMBLISS, BARRASSO, GOVERNOR HUNTSMAN TRAVEL TO IRAQ FOR THANKSGIVING

November 26, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), John Barrasso (R-WY) and Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) traveled through Iraq beginning yesterday.

Upon arrival, the group met with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for a briefing on new developments and progress in the region. McCain, Lieberman, Graham, Chambliss, Barrasso and Huntsman spent much of Thanksgiving with troops in Baghdad and al Anbar Province.

The CODEL today met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Vice President Adel Abdulmahdi, Iraqi police, Iraqi security forces and constituents in Kirkuk.

The CODEL will return tomorrow.

Lieberman Statement on Thanksgiving Trip to Iraq

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) issued the following statement on his Thanksgiving visit with the troops in Iraq:

“I had the privilege of spending Thanksgiving this year in Iraq with some of our brave men and women in uniform from Connecticut.

It is thanks to the service and sacrifice of these American heroes that the extraordinary progress we have seen over the past months in Iraq has been possible — progress for which all Americans should be grateful.

Over the last several months, our troops have dramatically transformed the security situation in Iraq by rolling back Al Qaeda and Iranian supported extremists. As a result of their courageous efforts, violence is sharply down, and our enemies are off balance and on the run.

My trip reinforced my belief that we must support the mission in Iraq and ensure that our troops receive the resources from Congress they need and deserve. Our troops are bravely carrying out their mission - and we have an obligation not to let them down at this critical moment.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 23, 2007
Contact: Marshall Wittmann

Graham Votes Against Democrats Iraq Withdrawal Plan

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today voted against a Democratic plan to begin troop withdrawals from Iraq. The plan, which called for all American troops to be out of Iraq by December 15, 2008, had already passed the House of Representatives.

He made this statement:

“Some people seem intent on taking one of the most successful counter-insurgency military operations in American history – the Surge – and undercutting it by the acts of one of the most dysfunctional Congresses in American history.

“We cannot deny funding to our troops in the field and we cannot replace the judgment of our military commanders with a dysfunctional Congress being led around by the nose by groups like Code Pink and Moveon.org. They refuse to acknowledge success. All they see is the next election and the potential for their next TV ad.

“We must not send a message to our enemies that we’re prepared to let them get off the mat and back into the fight. This was a ridiculous proposal which undercuts our national security interests. I’m proud to have been part of the effort to defeat this ill-advised measure.”

#####

Graham Calls on Democrats to Pass Funding for Troops and Veterans

WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today called on Senate Democrat leaders to pass troop and veterans funding legislation that can be signed into law.

Graham was joined at a press conference by a representative from Vets for Freedom and a group of Senators including Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and Richard Burr of North Carolina.

Graham said:

“I am extremely disappointed the Democrat-controlled Congress cannot appreciate that the surge has been one the most effective military operations in American history.

“We owe it to our troops and our own national security interests to continue to support their historic efforts. Instead, some seem intent on pulling the rug out from under their feet by failing to fund our troops while they are on the battlefield.

“The strings attached to the House bill put in jeopardy the gains we have made. It also sends the wrong message to a diminished enemy.”

The Senate has yet to vote on the bridge funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Conference Report.

####

Barrasso Visits Troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving

Wyoming Senator Travels To Iraq With McCain, Lieberman

November 21, 2007

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Barrasso , R-Wyo., will visit American troops and meet with top military commanders during a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq.

Barrasso joins a small congressional delegation led by Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Ct.

According to Barrasso, in addition to Thanksgiving dinner with the troops, the delegation will use the holiday to examine several areas of the country and meet with high-ranking military officials from the U.S. and Iraq.

“This is my first opportunity to see first-hand the job being done by our military commanders and troops in Iraq ,” Barrasso said. “As well, I think it is particularly important on this holiday of thanks that we tell our military men and women how proud we are of the job they do and how much they are missed back home,” Barrasso said.

Barrasso has made a special request with military affairs in Iraq that he is able to meet and dine with Wyoming soldiers if possible.

Following the trip, Barrasso will return directly to Wyoming.

Photos:

1) Dinner with the troops

2) Barrasso visits with General Petraeus

3) Wyoming soldiers with Senator Barrasso

Governor Huntsman Spent Thanksgiving with U.S. Troops

Salt Lake City - Utah Governor Jon Huntsman joined U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and John Barrasso (R-WY) on a tour through Iraq and the surrounding region beginning Thursday. The delegation will return to Washington DC Saturday.

Upon arrival, the group met with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for a briefing on new developments and progress in the region. Huntsman, McCain, Lieberman, Graham, Chambliss and Barrasso spent much of Thanksgiving with troops in Baghdad and al Anbar Province.

The delegation today met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Vice President Adel Abdulmahdi, Iraqi police, Iraqi security forces and constituents in Kirkuk.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1639 )
Vote Number: 235 Vote Date: June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1639
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 46
NAYs 53
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —46
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —53
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.

This is the first of what may be a series of reviews on this week’s amnesty battle. On Tuesday June 5, there was a vote on an amendment proposed by GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. If one takes the amendment at face value, it appears to be a fair request to not give preferential treatment to those who enter the US illegally. For the moment, this post will skip over the visa dilemma for now. Except to say there are plenty of flaws with how that item is treated also.

Senator Kyl tried to appear opposed to amnesty when the Senate took up this matter after the 2005 House vote which passed HR 4437. During the debate in the Senate then, Cornyn and Kyl were sending mixed signals. This time Kyl is given credit for spearheading this effort to provide amnesty. And he voted against this amendment. This would be an example of why things cannot be taken at face value. The big question mark on Kyl should be changed to calling him in favor of amnesty. And that would not be a good thing.

Below is the Allard amendment description. After that is the roll call results which tell much of the story.

Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.

Not Voting - 6

Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Four Presidential candidates for 2008 again declined to vote on the issue of illegal immigration. Apparently for them, political considerations are more important than doing their jobs and going on the record. As much as one can find fault with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her support of amnesty, to be fair, at least she voted this time. The no vote list is next.

NAYs —62

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The usual suspects voted against the amendment that claims to remove preferential treatment for illegals. The most notorious or significant among the no votes are:
Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Domenici, Feinstein, Graham, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Kyl, Leahy, ….. all hell, they are all significant and notorious. These people do not have the best interest of American citizens in their agenda. Not like that is a big surprise but it should be pointed out again.

Now for the yes votes and what it may mean.

YEAs —31

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

One item worth mentioning here is the Missouri Senators, Bond and McCaskill, are on the record as opposing amnesty and being strongly in favor of strong border security and control over illegal immigration. Yes, they are in the ‘yes’ column for this amendment. Cornyn is on this list whereas Kyl is on the ‘no’ vote side. What does that tell you? This list is something to consider when trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Stay tuned and keep contacting your elected reps on this issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

How does H Con Res 63 affect real security, protecting America and
restoring our leadership in the world? It doesn’t. (Stanford Matthews)
Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in Voting Yes on H Con Res 63
The names link to their information on Project Vote Smart (more on this later)

Representative Michael N. Castle District At-Large - US-House (R-DE)
Representative Howard Coble District 6 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Thomas M. ‘Tom’ Davis District 11 - US-House (R-VA)
Representative John J. Duncan District 2 - US-House (R-TN)
Representative Philip ‘Phil’ English District 3 - US-House (R-PA)
Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest District 1 - US-House (R-MD)
Representative Bob Inglis District 4 - US-House (R-SC)
Representative Timothy V. ‘Tim’ Johnson District 15 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Walter Beaman Jones District 3 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Ric Keller District 8 - US-House (R-FL)
Representative Mark Steven Kirk District 10 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Steven C. LaTourette District 14 - US-House (R-OH)
Representative Ronald E. ‘Ron’ Paul District 14 - US-House (R-TX)
Representative Thomas E. ‘Tom’ Petri District 6 - US-House (R-WI)
Representative James M. ‘Jim’ Ramstad District 3 - US-House (R-MN)
Representative Frederick Stephen ‘Fred’ Upton District 6 - US-House (R-MI)
Representative James T. ‘Jim’ Walsh District 25 - US-House (R-NY)

Church and State OTA weekend Feb 16-18, 2007 

So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.

Next, Congressional action is either a bill or resolution. Most of the time, resolutions are pretty much useless to the ordinary citizen. There is one example this past month that is not useless. It should not have to come to this but usually does. A joint resolution is similar to a bill. The one last month was for appropriations. You know, to keep the government operating until Congress and the President figure out what they’re doing.

So six bills and one joint resolution have the term “on passage” next to them in the voting record in the House. Being that it is joint and includes the Senate, that’s the only thing showing up on their completed list. Then there are the six bills. You’ll remember them from the daily reminder of the 100 hour agenda. Here’s a take on that.

On January 9, 2007, House of Representatives 1 or HR1 was passed.
This is to implement 9/11 Commission items.
On January 10, 2007, HR2 was passed.
This is for increasing minimum wage over 26 months.
On January 11, 2007, HR3 was passed.
This is to “enhance” stem cell research.
On January 12, 2007, HR4 was passed.
This allows government to negotiate medicare drug prices.
On January 17, 2007, HR5 was passed.
This lowers interest rates on government backed student loans
On January 18, 2007, HR6 was passed.
This is an act for alternative energy creation. That’s quite an act.
On January 19, 2007, HR475 was passed to revise the House Page Board.

The above items are what the House passed. The Senate passed the one joint resolution with the House. And one item became law that was posted here earlier. It is for renaming a National Recreation Area.

One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.

We would be better off paying more attention to the remainder of government. At the federal level at least, nothing productive is happening in the legislative branch. Ask anyone from the House or Senate if they care to dispute this. The new Democratic majority are developing disharmony among themselves as are the GOP members. If any of you still hold out optimism for the 110th Congress, good for you. Currently, the chances of Congress contributing to the overall good of the country are slim. That is unless they change their ways. And they will not.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Check the Beltway Traffic Jam 

Escalating Our Military Involvement in Iraq Sends Precisely the Wrong Message Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush’s address to the nation on the war in Iraq. 01/10/2007

There seems to be more conflict among people in this country as to an Iraq strategy than there is in Iraq. How’s that for helping out the other side? One of the drawbacks to freedom of speech is that people use it even when it is not in their best interest.

President Bush’s Administration is reminiscent of Lincoln and his difficulties with General McClellan in the Civil War. I will skip some obvious comparisons for the Demoratic party’s sentiments but can ask if anyone else was reminded of 1968.

It is unlikely that war plans have ever been completed without modification. Somewhere I heard someone say that after the first round is fired the battle plans go out the window. What politicians won’t give to us they expect from everyone else based on the words in the critiques. They claim they have the answer in their proposal. Leaving Iraq will solve the problem. They also claim the President’s current plan sends the wrong message. They think we’re doomed to fail. Have they ever considered their own actions may become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I have heard them say support the troops. Have they considered the positive effect of also supporting the mission? Slowly the Democrats opposition will convince me of the Dems suspected belief that utopia can be delivered if we all just talk and give each other a big hug. Let’s see ya try that with a terrorist who has repeatedly announced the fundamentalist mantra of killing all infidels. In case you’re not aware, that applies to anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe. And the way two distinct Muslim groups are killing each other in Iraq, that probably means everyone else.

Give the Bush Administration a chance to make something turn right about this wrongly initiated war. You might stop to think that some of us hold Congress partially to blame for failing to uncover the flaws as opposed to covering your political butts. And if the holier than thou minority of those voting against the war feel above reproach, forget about it. You were among the entire Congress, both houses, who failed to unearth the hoax. There is no “fool me once” loophole in matters of this importance. You all have a responsibility to see this thing through to a positive conclusion to right the wrongs and honor the sacrafice of others, Iraqis as well as Americans.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Another glance at a list of most popular news stories indicates the story of the two “abducted” boys has moved into first place since yesterday. In second place is a strange combo-looking thing featuring Hollywood divorces, Trump and Rosie and assorted other useless information. Third place has electronics standards and the BS electronics show hording space it doesn’t deserve. As a post of ours pointed out, the technology related industries in this country as well as others doles out tech advances in minuscule portions to maximize the profit ripoff of consumers. We have little sympathy for their perceived difficulties and absolutely no respect for their methods. Actually Beckham was in third place but who cares about soccer?

There are no other stories in the list worth mentioning with the possible exception of one on Secretary of State, Rice. The headline reads” Rice Encounters Skepticism in Mideast”. That is offered only for its comedic value. Maybe if the U.S. would put Israel in its place, show some compassion for the ordinary citizens of Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East and warn every nation in the region to make an effort at peace, we might have something. Show them you’re serious by completing what you started in Afghanistan and Iraq, quickly. Straighten out some of the messes you’ve gotten us into and start acting like world leaders and maybe some one will take you seriously. If you get that far you can tell Iran and North Korea or any one else spoiling for a fight to straighten up or their situation will change abruptly. Do what you need to provide a little lasting peace and prosperity in the region and then take a break and bring the troops home. It can be done so quit wasting time and get at it. Tell the morons back in the states to stop debating foreign policy and military strategy in the news and get to work also. This country could use some leadership. Let’s start with what we have and stop playing politics. For once, finish the job and stop looking like the idiots you probably are.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Iraqi Reconstruction Still Needs Investigating
December 8th, 2006
by Senator Joe Lieberman
The performance of Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen and his staff has been outstanding. The SIGIR has uncovered waste, mismanagement, and fraud on a massive scale, involving billions of squandered taxpayer dollars.

The more time that passes after the commission of a crime, the less likely it is that the perpetrators will be convicted. It is difficult to prepare a case against criminals if the time between the crime and prosecuting the offenders is excessive. It would be nice to hear from Senator Lieberman on why nothing has been done about it so far. The expectation would be that the Honorable Senator Lieberman would offer the all too common excuse that the Republican lead Congress would not move on such an investigation and only in the new 110th with a Democratic majority would that be possible. Even though Mr. Lieberman ran and won as an Independent candidate. He reassured us that he would side with Democrats.

More rhetoric when the real reason he ran as an independent was the only way he could possibly win re-election. More rhetoric from more politicians and more examples of less or nothing worthwhile being accomplished. More calls for justice that will never be answered. More nothing from a failing institution that urges Iraqis in a war torn country to emulate. Looks like they are learning well from their American teachers. Milk the cow for all it’s worth.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Potential Republican 2008 Presidential Candidates

McCain, Romney, Allen, Brownback and Cox

Gingrich, Giuliani, Hagel, Huckabee and Hunter

Pataki, Tancredo and Thompson

Potential Democratic 2008 Presidential Candidates

Clinton, Kerry, Obama, Biden and Gore

Vilsack, Bayh, Clark, Dodd and Edwards

Richardson and Daschle

The MoreWhat.com 2008 Potential Presidential Candidates List

This is our best attempt to put together a list of 2008 Potential Presidential Candidates. We will see as the months go by how many of these people are left on this list.

There are already indications that the Democratic majority in
Congress will be no better than any of the previous impotent
legislatures residing in Washington. With terrorism, border
security, immigration, health care, social security, oversight,
ethics, campaign and general political corruption the current
partial list of significant issues to address, Pelosi and the other
Democrats do not seem prepared to offer solutions.

After their 100 hour agenda, Dems will attack tax cuts for the
wealthy and the Bush fast track for trade agreements. One tired
old argument designed to appeal to the most liberal among us
and an empty gesture for damage already done. On top of this
the Dems will proclaim all new spending must be paid for. Nice
idea but impossible. All spending to date has this country so far
in the red that no other spending can be paid for.



With Steny Hoyer being characterized by lobbyists as someone
you can talk to and Pelosi meeting with labor unions, reasonable
expectations of any changes in politics as usual in Washington
appear dead. Other rumors that Republicans will give President
Bush nothing throughout the lame duck session only serves to
confirm the likelihood of pure politics and no solutions.



After a gap in legislative matters due to “district work periods”,
a record breaking lack of workdays and the midterm elections.
the House has passed six resolutions and rejected one since Sept
30th, all in November after the midterms. The rejected item was
related to trade with Viet Nam. The following is what they passed
since September between November 13th and 15th:


HR 3085 to amend the National Trail System Act
S 819 Pactola Resevoir Reallocation Authorization Act
HR6314 Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
HR 864 Program to Prevent Underage Drinking
HR5585 Financial Netting Improvements Act
HR 1078 Congratulate winners of the Baseball World Series


The Senate pass/fail ratio is nearly the inverse of the House. They
passed two and rejected five. The Senate passed appropriations
for the military and an act to provide nuclear technology to India.
The following is what the Senate rejected most recently in their
short work year:


Sen Amdt 5174 to limit the President’s waiver authority
Sen Amdt 5178 in support of UN Resolution 1172
Sen Amdt 5181 to ensure IAEA eqp not used for espionage
Sen Amdt 5183 to dissuade India from nuclear weapons
Sen Amdt 5187 to limit Presdent’s waiver authority on India deal
all the above related to S 3709, modifying the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 to allow the nuke deal with India.



With all the rhetoric suggesting terrorism, national security, border
security, immigration and foreign policy as primary issues, passing
legislation to supply India with nuclear power technology confirms
the President and Congress have lost their collective minds. Of all
the issues they could take action on, this is totally absurd. Outrage
expressed by countries not friendly to the United States is difficult to
defend against when the Federal government acts irresponsibly.



The Democratic majority offers little hope thus far. If minimum wage,
prescription drug prices, Big Oil tax breaks and student loan interest
are the 100 hour agenda of the Dems, we’re all screwed. The Dems
have an opportunity and they will blow it. The Republicans had an
opportunity and they blew it. And a term-limited President without
a default nominee for 2008 (the VP won’t run) leaves the American
public with a federal government that doesn’t give a damn.


If the American public does not bring to bear the only weapon we
have in response to this, nothing will change. Most of you will opt
to ignore it or merely dismiss public outcry as ineffective. Public
displeasure expressed in sufficient quantities and directed to elected
representatives is effective. Even if you do not get involved with an
organized effort to lobby your representative, your individual contact
to express a complaint or applaud a favorable action does matter. A
contact with your elected representatives gets translated into public
opinion. Enough public opinion is translated into votes and does get
the attention of politicians. How do you think the NEA or other well
known organizations get what they want? It’s not only contributions
to campaigns, it is votes represented by expressed public opinion.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com