House Rules

Are there ways for House Democrats to get around Speaker Boehner's refusal to bring a clean Continuing Resolution to a vote? Since Oct 1, they have used several parliamentary rules to force consideration. 

Last week, House Democrats raised five motions to recommit to replace H.R.59 (the House CR) with the Senate version. They were defeated on procedural grounds as not germane. They were also defeated on a motion to defeat the previous question.

On Friday, House Democrats began the process of filing a Discharge Petition. A Discharge Petition brings a bill directly out of a committee without the consent of the committee chair or, often, the House leadership, and brings it to an immediate vote. 

The first step, done last Friday, was to take an existing bill and file a resolution that offers substitute language on that bill. This Friday, they will begin gathering signatures on a Discharge Petition. They will need a simple majority of House members to sign; all 200 House Democrats plus at least 18 Republicans. If they get the required signatures, they can file the petition which will cause the bill to be discharged from the Rules Committee and force an immediate up or down vote.

Unfortunately, signing a Discharge Petition is a direct challenge to the leadership of the House in a manner that is far worse than simply voting for a bill the GOP doesn't back. Members who do so risk having their chairmanships of key committees revoked and losing the backing of the RNC for re-election bids. Further, Speaker Boehner can pre-empt the makers of the petition if it looks like they could get the 218 signatures. Discharge petitions have rarely worked because of that. The last one that actually garnered the required signatures was the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in 2002. That petition forced Speaker Hastert to bring the legislation to the floor despite Republican opposition, and it eventually passed.

As a side note, I have seen a few articles accusing Speaker Boehner of adhering to the Hastert Rule. This is an unwritten House rule that the Speaker will not allow legislation unless a "majority of the majority" in in favor. Regardless of whether this rule has ever existed, Speaker Boehner has not adhered to it. Nearly half of all bills passed by the 113th Congress have passed without the support of a majority of House Republicans.

The Washington Post is reporting this morning that the NRCC has "agreed to stop placing automated telephone calls to New Hampshire residents on the federal do-not-call list".

"Alex Burgos, the GOP committee's spokesman, said Monday that the group's automated calls would comply with 'all applicable laws.' He did not elaborate."

"The committee voluntarily agreed Sunday to stop calling homes on the registry after a citizen complained to the state attorney general's office, which then spoke with the GOP group's lawyer in Washington."

Why does it take a complaint to the State attorney General's office to get these people to grudgingly comply with the law? This is beyond disgusting!

The Chairman of the NRCC is Tom Reynolds. I called his Washington office to complain. The person who answered me directed me to the NRCC office.

I suggest more people begin calling his offices to complain.

Washington DC Office

332 Cannon House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5265 - phone
(202) 225-5910 - fax

Greece Office

1577 West Ridge Road
Greece, NY 14615
(585) 663-5570 - phone
(585) 663-5711 - fax

Williamsville Office

500 Essjay Road,
Suite 260
Williamsville, NY 14221
(716) 634-2324 - phone
(716) 631-7610 - fax


NRCC Office
202-479-7029

Liars and Lars

Lars Larson, Oregon's equivalent to Limbaugh, was on Larry King last night with a group of other radio and blog pundits. Larson was asked whether he had faith in Oregon's voting system. He held forth with a stream of unfounded allegations of fraud that made it appear as though illegals had taken over the system.

KING: What's the machines like in Oregon?

LARSON: You know what? We have vote by mail, which is a fraud that is ongoing right now. Vote by mail is a disaster. The rest of the country is talking about it. Don't go there. You'll end up with fraud. That's what's happening. And illegal aliens voting.

Larson's remarks went completely unchallenged and unremarked.

The truth of the matter is that Oregon's system stands out as among the least fraudulent in the county. The ballots are mailed to the voters residence as a first check. Voters who have moved are automatically stricken from the rolls because ballots cannot be forwarded. Voters can call the county clerk in their new county to receive a new ballot. If a ballot is then received in their name from their old address, that ballot is discarded.

The voter marks the ballot and seals it in a privacy envelope, then in a mailing envelope that he or she signs. The voter then either mails the ballot or drops it in any of the designated drop sites. When the ballot gets to the Elections office, the signature is verified against the signature on file in the county clerk's office by the signature clerk. This is one way that dead people don't get to vote - they can't sign the ballot.

After the ballot is verified, a panel of four people with at least one person from the Republican and Democratic parties present inspects the ballot to make certain it can be scanned properly by the machine and that the voter's intent for each race is clear.

The optical scanners used to count the vote are stand alone machines not networked to any other machine. This means they are not susceptible to hacking, unlike electronic voting machines. The paper ballots are then kept in a fireproof safe in case a recount is called for.

Larson charged that illegals are voting. This is a bromide with no basis in reality. It comes from the fact that an illegal might be issued a driver license in Oregon. A driver's license is used as ID to get a voter ID, as in many other states under the Motor Voter Law. There is no evidence that Oregon is more susceptible to this than any other state, nor is there evidence that illegals are voting in any significant numbers anywhere.

If studies have shown that vote by mail is not more open to fraud and abuse, why is Mr. Larson so threatened by it?

Because it increases voter participation. Oh my! We can't have that!

Winning

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses" President Bush declared Monday in Statesboro, GA.

The Republican strategy this week has been to repeatedly pose a question of Democrats: "Answer yes or no: Do you have a plan for victory in Iraq?". The question appears innocent, but is a game, just like the age-old, "Answer yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The difficulty the answerer experiences in answering the wife-beating question is that the entire question is based on an incorrect assumption. The Iraqi war question is also based on assumptions inquirers will not admit exist.

The first assumption is the definition of victory. We may very well find that the President's definition of the word "victory" as it pertains to Iraq is different than our own. When you keep the details of your victory plan a secret, if something doesn't quite work out, it's easy to go back and rationalize it as part of your plan. A presidential, "I meant to do that", as it were.

The second assumption is that victory is possible. Given the reports of record numbers of civilian deaths as well as the fourth highest month of military casualties in Iraq, the escalating violence does not appear to indicate that progress is being made. Retired generals are, more and more, speaking out against the current Administration's conduct of the war. Under the current circumstances, and given that the US has stretched its resources to the breaking point already, the biggest victory might be to quit providing more weapons for insurgents to steal.

What truly matters is not whether or not the Democrats can answer a trick question. What matters is the fact that none of Bush's secret plans have worked. His plans have created more terrorists when he began the war. The fact remains that Al Qaida was not in Iraq in substantial numbers before we invaded. In terms of terror, they have only had successes in Iraq.

And, speaking of successes, where is Osama Bin Laden? Why has his terrorist network only grown in strength while the Administration pats itself on the back for foiling an internet terrorist plot to blow up a nonexistent football stadium?

You tell us that if we elect the Democrats, America loses and the terrorists win. We ask you now, Mr. Bush: When have the terrorists actually lost under your regime?

Grist for the Foley Mill

If you've ever made large amounts of jam, you know what a Foley Mill™ is. It's saucepan with a crank inside with a paddle and a sieve for a bottom. Put your fruit mash in it and crank it through to make smooth apple butter or pear butter.

See where we're heading? The whole Mark Foley mess is in the mill, and we are seeing what drips out. It hasn't jelled yet.

We wonder at Mr Hastert's claims that ABC had some political motivation in releasing the Foley emails when it did. Mere weeks ago, ABC was the conservative darling when they stood up to Bill Clinton himself and showed a blatantly slanted version of the Path to 9/11. They were the tool of Michael Eisner, now they are the tool of George Soros? You can't have it both ways, Dennis!

What about the claim that the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was irresponsible in their handling of the emails. Hang on! They turned them over to the FBI upon receiving them. One would think turning them over to the press at a time when one expects an FBI investigation would hamper that investigation. From here, it looks like they did the responsible thing. The fact that the FBI is only now starting an investigation seems strange. What did the FBI do with the emails last July when CREW turned them over?

The only thing that is clear is that it the mill is still cranking. And the Republican Party is in a real jam.

The Swift Boat Sails Again

Watching TV tonight there was an ad against Congressman Darlene Hooley in her race against Mike Erickson. This race has grown close lately and grown ugly as well, generating attack ads on both sides. This ad was slick. It exaggerated her record to hold her personally responsible for raiding Social Security, building a "Bridge to Nowhere" and helping illegal aliens.

The ad didn't come from her opponent's camp. It came from an organization called the Economic Freedom Fund. This organization is the new baby of none other than Bob Perry, the guy behind Swift Boat Veterans for Freedom.

EFF is already in trouble for illegal calling activities in campaigns in several states. This is really disgusting.

Watch for the EFF. Coming to a TV near you!!

Airport Shenanigans

When I visited the USSR in 1976, officials were keen on visitors not leaving with certain items. It was an odd game. You could buy only official souvenirs sold in tourist stores. these were often far too expensive for a recent high school graduate on a budget (and cheaply made).

The official stores did not have what we wanted anyway. We somehow found places that sold us the Red Army belts and Soviet flags to smuggle out and adorn our college dorm rooms. What was most puzzling was the policy on значкий - the little enamelled pins people were constantly exchanging as gifts. They most often commemorated places or events, like Leningrad or the launch of Sputnik. We had brought a few American flag pins and Oregon pins to trade, but quickly ran out. It didn't matter. People were constantly giving us little pins all the time we were there. It was sweet.

And it was illegal to take them out of the country. I never quite got my head around why these cute little pins were so evil. But we played the game and duly smuggled them.

Except that I forgot to hide mine. I had been pinning mine to my hat, and it was a hot, sunny day. I had intended to stuff my hat far down into my brimming backpack before going through security. But, being as absent-minded as I am today, I simply forgot it was on my head.

I approached the uniformed security guard, my backpack full of contraband, my значкий openly on my head. He took one look at me and pointed at my hat and laughed. He waggled his finger and admonished me in Russian for having violated the law (I gave him a nice "deer in the headlights" stare that I reserve for times when I'm scared I'm going to get thrown into a Gulag). He looked at my passport, didn't check my backpack and waved me through, giggling to his comrades about the silly American girl who didn't know enough to smuggle her значкий out properly.

Contrast this with a piece found on slashdot from samzenpus. A guy gets cheeky and writes "Kim Hawley is an idiot" on the outside of the plastic bag he used for his toothpaste and hair gel (Kim "Kip" Hawley is the head of the TSA). He was detained. Police were called. He was told his First Amendment rights did not apply in line at the airport.

Notwithstanding it was a stupid stunt. But it illustrates the point that we live in a nation trapped in the thrall of terrorism. We are terrorized. A note on a plastic bag calling an official an idiot is not a terrorist threat! Any plot, no matter how ludicrous, is taken seriously. A few months ago, there was an alert because of evidence obtained under torture of a plot to dismantle bridges with torches. Any rational person would realize that you can't dismantle a bridge with a torch! No one is even stopping long enough to use the space between their ears before pressing the panic button.

Al Qaeda does not have to plant a single bomb to make us jump. We are doing Bin Laden's work for him. We are undermining our own economy and sacrificing any international goodwill we once had in a fight that our recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate says has made things worse.

It seems the biggest casualty of the war on terror is our national sense of humor.