Jeff Miller: opposes House health care bill but hasn't read it

I'm not sure whether it's because he won't read it or can't read it, but U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Land That Time Forgot) has managed yet again to make me wonder how he got elected to Congress in the first place. He hasn't read the House Democrats' proposed health care reform bill, but he still knows he doesn't like it:

The bill, crafted by House Democratic leaders, would provide insurance by 2019 to 36 million Americans who are currently uninsured, though the details, are, of course, numerous.

The bill contains about 400,000 words — more than double the words in the New Testament.

"I haven't started reading it yet," Miller said. "And anyone who says they've read it and know what's in it is not being 100 percent truthful."

Still, Miller said that what he knows of the legislation disturbs him. He said the bill, which was lauded by President Barack Obama, will raise taxes, cost jobs and cut Medicare.

Look, I know it's a huge, complex bill. Health care reform is a huge, complex problem. But Congressman Know-It-All here hasn't even begun to read the bill, and yet he opposes it because it "will raise taxes, cost jobs and cut Medicare." Do you have any proof of that, Rep. Miller? I mean, in the bill itself ... because if you're going to take it apart, you should rely on more than merely your blind hatred of President Obama to back up your claims.

I'm not saying Rep. Miller is going to support the bill once he reads it (if he ever does). In fact, I'm quite certain he'd oppose it even if he knew it backwards and forwards. (And, incidentally, Jeff, how the hell do you know that anyone who says they read and understood the bill is lying? What a pretentious ass ...) But what I am saying is that it would be nice if certain members of Congress would take a little time to become acquainted with a piece of legislation before attacking it.

I know -- in the case of Jeff Miller, that's asking way, way too much.

Grayson apologizes

Rep. Alan Grayson apologized today.

No, not to Republicans in Congress for hurting their itty-bitty widdle feelings when he said -- correctly -- that when it comes to health care reform, Republicans "want you to die."

Not only did Grayson stand by what he said yesterday -- again, correctly -- but he actually apologized to dead people for Congress' failure to enact health care reform sooner.

"I've spoken to other members of leadership and nobody has asked me to apologize. Nobody is going to ask me to apologize. As I said before, no rules of the House were broken. We have a - if you bother to look it up - there's something in the Constitution called the Speech and Debate Clause and I think it well covers this situation. So no, nobody is going to ask me to apologize among the Democrats. I think the Republicans have something to apologize for but I made clear exactly what that is last night," he said.

Grayson also took to the House floor to offer a different sort of apology - to those who have died for lack of health insurance. "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't acted sooner to end this holocaust in America," he said.

I love this guy ... in a manly way, of course. Thank Jeebus one Democrat (and from Florida, no less!) has the balls to say what needs to be said. And when lesser Democrats -- Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, et al. -- bow and scrape at the slightest breath of Republican consternation, Alan Grayson is one Dem who says he's mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore.

More like Grayson, please. Many, many more. It's nice, finally, to have someone who, as another Floridian once put it, won't back down.

Jefferson-Jackson Dinner 2009: liveblogging, page 3

Rep. Corrine Brown is speaking now. I forgot that she always starts speaking by saying, "God is good," waiting for the response "All the time," then she says "All the time" and people respond "God is good." The response was, well, tepid.

Anyway, she's talking about education, focusing on how Florida ranks 50th in public high school graduation rates. She met with Gov. Crist and discovered he did not even apply for a funding waiver from the federal government that would have meant literally billions of dollars. She says she is determined to work on changing Florida's direction.

Rep. Allen Boyd speaking now: "the most important function of our federal government is to make our homeland secure. We have the strongest military in the world ..." I'm not surprised to hear Blue Dog Boyd speak on this topic ... then again, they may have saved it for him, since each member of Congress is speaking about a different topic. He recounts how he returned from Vietnam to "an ungrateful nation." Therefore, we must make sure that those returning from war now are taken care of ... "but unlike the other party, we realize that will take money."

All Dem members of the state House have taken the stage. Looks a little crowded up there -- there are over 40 of them. Of course, they still represent less than a third of the entire House because of the completely disproportionate GOP majority under which we suffer ...

UPDATE (6:50 pm 5/30/09): Florida's Democratic state senate delegation just appeared on stage, or (as Mario Piscatella said) at least those who are running for higher office. Sen. Nan Rich spoke on their behalf ... sorry, I drifted for a while, so I wasn't really listening. So sue me.

Now there's a lull with music (no, I'm not the DJ, although I would have done it if asked) as they prepare for, well, I've really no idea what exactly. I'm sure it's going to be Very Exciting, though. Stay tuned.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: the Republican Party

Oh, I know, I shouldn't pile on the GOP when it's down. I mean, I already cackled my ass off over their misfortune once this week, when it was reported that Ron Paul supporters plan to try a hostile takeover of the Republican National Convention. Besides, there's some especially rich schadenfreude available right now over the epic smackdown of conservative radio gasbag Kevin James (no, not the guy from that shitty Adam Sandler movie) by -- of all people -- Tweety on today's Hardball. (Seriously, if you haven't seen that video, you owe it to yourself to watch it. Scroll forward to the 4:00 mark if you want to skip all of James' initial blather.) But choosing James wouldn't just be redundant ... it would be too easy.

No, instead I'll go back to an old standby and point and laugh at the Republican Party, which is almost literally disintegrating right before our very eyes. The results of the recent special election in a Mississippi district just outside of Memphis, Tenn., where a Democrat took a GOP-held congressional seat, seems to have spurred House Republicans into the sickening realization that they're facing a serious ass-whuppin' in November.

In huddles, closed-door meetings and hastily arranged conference calls, some Republicans demanded the head of their political chief, while others decried their leadership as out of touch with the political catastrophe they face.

GOP leaders sought yesterday to "re-brand" the party with a new slogan and renewed pledges of fiscal rectitude and limited government. But the slogan -- "The Change You Deserve" -- came under mocking fire, because it parallels Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" motto and it mirrors the advertising slogan for the antidepressant Effexor.

"What we've got is a deficiency in our message and a loss of confidence in the American people that we will do what we say we're going to do," conceded Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

[...]

Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, has been badly damaged by scandals besetting his family and his party in Alaska, creating an unexpected opportunity for Democrats. Sen. John E. Sununu (N.H.) is defending a seat in a state where Democratic fortunes are on the rise, and other Republican senators -- including Susan Collins (Maine), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) -- are seeking reelection in states leaning Democratic in a presidential election year. In total, 23 Republican-held Senate seats will be on the ballot this fall compared with 12 for Democrats.

Even Republican strategists were downcast about their prospects for the fall.

"These races were not in New Jersey or New England, where Republican erosion has taken place over the last decade. They were in the heart of the Bible Belt, the social conservative core of our coalition," Rep. Tom Davis (Va.) fretted in a 20-page memorandum given to House Republican leaders yesterday and provided to The Washington Post.

"Members and pundits, waiting for Democrats to fumble the ball so that soft Republicans and Independents will snap back to the GOP, fail to understand the deep seeded antipathy toward the President, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures and, in some areas, the underlying cultural differences that continue to brand our party."

No, Republicans. You cannot run as the party of "change." You own Drunky McStagger. You own Iraq. You own the shitty economy. All of this is in your lap, and nothing you can do or say or spin can change that. And naturally you would choose a slogan that mimics that of an antidepressant. The irony is stunning.

Some of the pundits and GOP apologists/sycophants/fluffers are trying to prop up Huggy Bear, the dessicated, goiter-ridden near-corpse, as their savior and their hope for the future. Funny how they choose a 71-year-old guy as hope for the future, but that's par for the course for a party that is coming apart at the seams. Plus the House Republicans are trying to pass off responsibility for the war on the Democrats. It's not gonna work. I really think that, finally, people are catching on that the Emperor is butt-nekkid and that with the GOP, there's no there there.

It's about fucking time.

So, Republicans, I hope you enjoy stewing in your own juices ... but in the meantime, you once again can enjoy the spoils of victory, DFH-style, as today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Since when is immigration a state concern?

I can't believe I have to admit that I'm on the same side as Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio (R-aving lunatic), but for once I am.

This other wingnut in the state House, Trudi Williams (R-Fort Myers), has introduced an immigration bill in Tallahassee:

A package of immigration-related bills has been slated for a workshop session today in the House Committee of State Affairs.

Included in the half-dozen proposals is a measure by Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers, that would allow illegal immigrants being held in jail to be voluntarily returned to their country of origin at state expense.

No votes or action can be taken at a workshop, which is for discussion only. At this late point in the session, a workshop for bills means its outlook is bleak.

The Senate companion to Williams' bill is sponsored by Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, and it had its first committee hearing about a week ago.

It passed, but only after Bennett revised it to mirror an already-existing federal program, saying that could help it survive questions about legality and intrusion into federal matters.

Putting aside for the moment the obvious-yet-customary GOP racism and xenophobia inherent in this kind of immigration "reform," the biggest problem is that such a program could cost the state up to $70 million, at a time when Florida faces its biggest fiscal crisis in decades.

Moreover, as Rep. Rubio points out, the Wangian™ legislature has, well, other priorities:

Additionally, House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-Miami, and a likely candidate for Miami-Dade mayor after being termed out this year, said he, too, had problems with the bills intruding into federal matters.

While the measures have been popular with many voters — some anti-immigrant organizations have produced ads attacking Rubio for blocking the proposal — Rubio said the House has other pressing matters taking members' attention.

So Marco and I agree. Great.

Perhaps I should see a doctor.

Brevard elects a Democrat; Hell freezes over*

I'm thrilled to see that Tony Sasso, the Democratic candidate for State House District 32 in northern Brevard and Orange counties, has won the seat formerly held by Blowin' Bob Allen (R-On His Knees). Congratulations, Tony!

A little friendly advice, though, Tony: you probably should wipe off that seat before you sit in it.

---

* As a former Brevard resident, I know it's a mighty -- you might even say "disgustingly" -- conservative place. So my title is snarky, but not without gratitude. After all, my other thought for a title was "Blind squirrel finds acorn," but I thought that cut just a little too close ...

Remember Mark Foley?

Disgraced former Rep. Mark "maf54" Foley (R-Fla.) is still in the news. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has been investigating Foley's interaction with male House pages, but they can't obtain a key piece of evidence:

State investigators believe they cannot complete an investigation of Mark Foley unless U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hands over the computers the former congressman used when he was in office.

[...]

The FDLE began an investigation into the messages last year at the request of former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, also a Republican.

The investigation was stymied last summer, [FDLE Commissioner Gerald] Bailey suggested, when House of Representatives General Counsel Kerry Kircher refused to turn over the computers.

"Access to these computers is critical to the Department's ability to move this case forward," Bailey said in a statement released Tuesday.

Pelosi's office said Bailey's letter was received only last week because of security screening.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Pelosi's office acknowledged the House may have constitutional concerns.

Constitutional concerns? As in free speech, or search and seizure, or what?

What benefit could Pelosi, or the House of Representatives generally, gain by withholding Foley's computers? I think this stinks somehow ... and I hope the FDLE continues to apply pressure. If Foley's behavior was illegal, it ought to be investigated fully and prosecuted appropriately.

Hastert is out

It's official, and it's imminent. Former Speaker of the House Jabba the Hutt Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) is resigning. He's scheduled to give his farewell remarks this afternoon.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Denny. Then again, how can it miss?

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: the Republican Party

This is the very definition of schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, for the uninitiated): the headline in today's Los Angeles Times reads:

Retirement season hits GOP hard

Aw, poor babies ... but you can't deny that the Repukes are dropping like flies. No fewer than seventeen GOP members of Congress have announced their retirements at the end of their current terms, and of those, only one is stepping down to run for higher office (from the House to run for the Senate).

The reasons they give range from the old "spending more time with their families" excuse to more, um, honest ones:

"I don't like being in the minority," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who was first elected in the 1994 GOP landslide and will retire after this term. "It's not that much fun, and the prospects for the future don't look that good."

Here, have a tissue, Ray. It's "not ... fun" to be in the minority, you say? Wow, what a shitty reason to retire from Congress. I'm sure your constituents are heartened by your perseverance.

The wave of retirements compounds the challenge facing the GOP in the 2008 congressional election, because the party is significantly trailing Democrats in fundraising. That means Republicans will apparently be defending more House and Senate seats with less money, and they will be fighting battles in places that otherwise might have been secure.

What is more, many of the Republicans choosing to retire are older, more pragmatic lawmakers, such as Rep. Ralph Regula of Ohio; moderates like Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio and Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia; and mavericks like Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. These departures reflect the generational and ideological changes that have pushed the Republican contingent in Congress steadily to the right over the last decade.

Eddie Mahe, a former GOP official, says it is no surprise that many Republicans are thinking about quitting politics at a time when President Bush's popularity is low, Iraq is in turmoil and the U.S. economy may be going soft.

"If I was talking to my favorite brother-in-law and he was thinking about running for Congress, I would say, 'Why would you want to do that now?' " Mahe said. "If anybody's not smart enough to figure that out, I don't want them around anyway."

Shorter Times: the Democrats want to thank you in advance, Republicans, for 2008.

It's not just the retirements that have the GOP gripping:

Republicans will probably be fighting on that turf with less money: As of the end of August, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $22.1 million on hand, compared with $1.6 million held by the GOP House committee.

There is a similar imbalance in fundraising for Senate races: As of the end of August, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had $20.6 million in the bank; its Republican counterpart had $7.1 million.

That financial disadvantage is especially problematic for Republicans because next year the party must defend 22 of its 49 Senate seats, compared with 12 Senate seats to be defended by Democrats.

For the GOP, the climb to recapture the Senate majority it lost in 2006 has gotten steadily steeper, as one veteran senator after another announced retirement. Warner cited his advancing age. Hagel and Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado each said he was abiding by his promise to serve only two terms. Sen. Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico is leaving due to illness.

Those announcements were a big blow to the GOP, because Democrats would have had little hope of being competitive in Virginia, Nebraska and New Mexico against those popular incumbents. They have a good shot at those states now -- especially in Virginia, where Republicans are divided over whom to nominate for the seat and the leading Democratic candidate, Mark R. Warner, is a popular former governor.

Indeed, a report this morning revealed that Mark Warner, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. John Warner (R), raised over $1 million for his campaign in just a couple of weeks, while one potential opponent countered with just $78,000.

So, this morning I take great pleasure in celebrating the misfortune of Republicans. You hitched your wagon to a bum mule, GOP -- several, actually, led by your erstwhile hero Drunky McStagger. The rest of the world knew years ago that he was a drooling, incompetent fucking idiot, but you stuck with him. And now you get to reap the benefits. Couldn't happen to a nicer more corrupt and repulsive group of people.

At least you can take solace in one good thing, though: today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Now the House has its own Democrats For Undermining the Constitution and Kowtowing Eternally to Drunky caucus

It seems my faith in the House stopping the Bush crime syndicate's shredding of the Constitution was misplaced.

Little more than an hour ago, the House passed the FISA amendments by a 227-183 vote.

I'm absolutely shocked ... stunned ... appalled. I would never have believed that the Democrats would roll over so massively.

There are 41 members of the House's D-FUCKED caucus, joining their 16 traitorous colleagues in the Senate. Here are the House Dems who voted for the bill, with links to their homepages (contact information for each is on there):

Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (Georgia)
Melissa Bean (Illinois)
Dan Boren (Oklahoma)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Allen Boyd (Florida)
Chris Carney (Pennsylvania)
Ben Chandler (Kentucky)
Jim Cooper (Tennessee)
Jim Costa (California)
Bud Cramer (Alabama)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Artur Davis (Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (Tennessee)
Joe Donnelly (Indiana)
Chet Edwards (Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (Indiana)
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (Tennessee)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota)
Brian Higgins (New York)
Baron Hill (Indiana)
Nick Lampson (Texas)
Dan Lipinski (Illinois)
Jim Marshall (Georgia)
Jim Matheson (Utah)
Mike McIntyre (North Carolina)
Charlie Melancon (Louisiana)
Harry Mitchell (Arizona)
Collin Peterson (Minnesota)
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
Ciro Rodriguez (Texas)
Mike Ross (Arkansas)
John Salazar (Colorado)
Heath Shuler (North Carolina)
Vic Snyder (Arkansas)
Zack Space (Ohio)
John Tanner (Tennessee)
Gene Taylor (Mississippi)
Tim Walz (Minnesota)
Charlie Wilson (Ohio)

It's interesting to note that two -- yes, just two -- Republicans voted against giving Drunky McStagger more power to violate the Constitution: Tim Johnson (Illinois) and Walter Jones (North Carolina). You think their Democratic opponents next year will be crowing about how they voted against the "Protect America Act?"

I'm somewhat disappointed, but more curious, to note that my own representative, Ron Klein (D-Fla.), did not vote.

Their word means nothing

Courtesy of Progressive Librarian on the other side of Teh Wang™ at TampaBay Democrat, we are reminded of promises that certain members of Congress made a few years ago ... including my former congresscritter, Dave Weldon (R-Lunatic) of FL-15.

But what's really interesting is PL's link through Smashed Frog ... looks like Dentist Dave isn't the only one whose word is worthless. Let's set the Way Back Machine to February 1999, Sherman:

Over the past two election cycles, U.S. Term Limits has shifted its strategy from promoting candidates solely because they believe in term-limit legislation. The group now is throwing its support behind candidates who are willing to sign a pledge, and is working against candidates who refuse.

A separate group, Americans for Limited Terms, spent millions of dollars in the 1998 cycle on issue ads designed to promote pledge signers and shed a negative light on those who refused to sign.

Five House Republicans signed that pledge in 1996, vowing to leave office by 2002. They are Bob Schaffer of Colorado, Ron Lewis of Kentucky, John Cooksey of Louisiana, Rick Hill of Montana and John Thune of South Dakota.

Nine members of this year's incoming freshman class [elected 1998] signed the six-year pledge. They are Doug Ose, R-Calif.; Grace F. Napolitano, D-Calif.; Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.; Judy Biggert, R-Ill.; Ken Lucas, D-Ky.; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; and Mark Green, R-Wis. Also signing was Lois Capps, D-Calif., who first won her seat in a March 1998 special election.

U.S. Term Limits also lists 18 other House members as having promised during their campaigns to limit themselves to a certain number of terms. These members have said they will not seek re-election in 2004: Ken Calvert, R-Calif.; James Maloney, D-Conn.; Porter Goss, R-Fla.; Dave Weldon, R-Fla.; Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa; Greg Ganske, R-Iowa; Donald Manzullo, R-Ill.; John Baldacci, D-Maine; Nick Smith, R-Mich.; James M. Talent, R-Mo.; David Minge, DMinn.; Richard M. Burr, RN.C.; Bob Franks, R-N.J.; Steve Chabot, R-Ohio; Ted Strickland, D-Ohio; Steven C. LaTourette, R-Ohio; Ralph Hall, D-Texas; and Richard "Doc" Hastings, R-Wash.

With that introduction, it's time for an exciting round of Where Are They Now?

Class of 1996 -- signed pledge
Bob Schaffer (R-Colo.) -- fulfilled his pledge, later failed in a bid for the U.S. Senate.
Ron Lewis (R-Ky.) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise.
John Cooksey (R-La.) -- fulfilled his pledge, but failed in a bid for the U.S. Senate.
Rick Hill (R-Mont.) -- fulfilled his pledge but did so early because of health problems.
John Thune (R-S.D.) -- fulfilled his pledge, now in the U.S. Senate.

Class of 1998 -- signed pledge
Doug Ose (R-Calif.) -- fulfilled his pledge.
Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.) -- still in the House, so she reneged on her promise.
Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise (and he wants to be President!).
Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) -- still in the House, so she reneged on her promise.
Ken Lucas (D-Ky.) -- fulfilled his pledge.
Lee Terry (R-Neb.) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise.
Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) -- fulfilled his pledge, but failed in a bid for the U.S. Senate.
Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) -- fulfilled his pledge, now in the U.S. Senate.
Mark Green (R.-Wis.) -- reelected in 2004, so he reneged on his promise, but failed in a bid for governor of Wisconsin in 2006 and is not presently in Congress.

Limited to 2004 but did not sign pledge
Ken Calvert (R.-Calif.) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise.
James Maloney (D-Conn.) -- was not reelected in 2002, so he fulfilled his promise (albeit perhaps involuntarily).
Porter Goss (R-Fla.) -- resigned in 2004 to become CIA director, so he fulfilled his promise.
Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) -- as noted above, he's running again, so he continues to renege on his promise.
Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise.
Greg Ganske (R-Iowa) -- fulfilled his promise early, but failed in a bid for the U.S. Senate in 2002.
Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise.
John Baldacci (D-Me.) -- fulfilled his promise early and now is governor of Maine.
Nick Smith (R-Mich.) -- fulfilled his promise.
James M. Talent (R-Mo.) -- fulfilled his promise early for an unsuccessful gubernatorial run in 2000; later served one term in the U.S. Senate.
David Minge (D-Minn.) -- was not reelected in 2000 so, like Maloney, he involuntarily fulfilled his promise early.
Richard M. Burr (R-N.C.) --fulfilled his promise, now in the U.S. Senate.
Bob Franks (R-N.J.) -- fulfilled his promise early, but failed in a bid for the U.S. Senate in 2000.
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise.
Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) -- reelected in 2004, so he reneged on his promise, but he did not run in 2006 and now is governor of Ohio.
Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise.
Ralph Hall (D/R-Tex.) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise; I hardly think switching from Democrat to Republican in 2004 nullified his promise.
Richard "Doc" Hastings (R-Wash.) -- still in the House, so he reneged on his promise.

Whew! If you're keeping score at home, let's sum up:

Out of 32 House members who said they would leave by 2004, 17 did so.

Therefore, 15 of them didn't keep their word. Interestingly, that number is comprised of three Democrats and 12 Republicans. Are you as shocked as I am? I thought so. I mean, what is it about Republicans not being able to keep their word?

But wait ... as I type this, there are 13 current House members who promised to be out by 2004 and they're still there, two terms later: two Democrats and eleven Republicans. Thirteen members of Congress whose word is worth as much as the paper I'm writing on (yes, that means nada), including one presidential candidate.

Think about that the next time one of these folks promises to do anything.

---

Ed. note: I am not personally in favor of term limits, for I believe the best term limit is to vote the bastards out. This data is presented solely to draw attention to the rank hypocrisy of certain members of Congress, a disproportionate number of whom just happen to be Republicans.

Condi Rice says no to Congress

Looks like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is going to defy the subpoena issued by a House committee.

Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person.

"I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

The comments were her first reaction to a subpoena issued on Wednesday by the committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Rice said she respected the oversight function of the legislative branch, but maintained she had already testified in person and under oath about claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa during her confirmation hearing for the job of secretary of state.

"I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing," she said. "This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered."

Contempt of Congress is such an ugly concept, isn't it? But it looks good on Condi ... wonder how she'd look in orange, say, a jumpsuit?

Immunity for Goodling

Well, our old friend Monica Goodling is really up a creek now.

I'll bet she never thought the House would grant her immunity. But this morning, they did exactly that.

So now she can't plead the Fifth Amendment, since nothing she could say would subject her to prosecution for the original offenses. Therefore, she either snitches on her colleagues (and bosses), or she lies and gets prosecuted for perjury. Rock, meet hard place.

Too bad I already did the Daily Schadenfreude today. Monica deserves a goodly share of laughing and pointing now ...

Kyle Sampson: Liar, liar, pants on fire

Hey, I never said this blog was mature.

But it turns out there was something pretty important in that document dump this morning. Kyle Sampson apparently lied when he said that there was only one replacement U.S. attorney identified prior to the firings of eight prosecutors, leading to the current Bush crime syndicate brouhaha. On the contrary, there were five potential replacements named:

E-mails sent to the White House in January and May of 2006 by D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, name potential replacements for U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Little Rock and Grand Rapids.

The disclosures contrast with previous statements from Sampson and other Justice officials. They have said that only Tim Griffin, a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove who was later appointed the top federal prosecutor in Little Rock, had been identified as a replacement candidate before the dismissals of the sitting U.S. attorneys.

"These documents uncover one of the most central and disconcerting contradictions we've seen so far," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "We have been told that there were no backups in mind to replace the fired U.S. attorneys, and these documents make it clear that there were."

Sampson's attorney and a Justice spokesman said yesterday that the candidates listed were only tentative suggestions and were never seriously considered. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the list "reflects Kyle Sampson's initial thoughts" and "in no way contradicts the department's prior statements" about the lack of a candidate list.

Uh huh. Well, let's see what Sampson actually said:

Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that on Dec. 7, when seven U.S. attorneys were sacked, "I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign."

So, writing e-mails naming names isn't "in mind," Kyle? I beg to differ.

The obfuscation just goes on and on and on ...

Also released yesterday was a chart given to Gonzales in February that noted U.S. attorneys' political backgrounds and whether they were members of the Federalist Society, a coalition of conservative lawyers and legal scholars with close ties to the Bush administration. It is not clear when the chart was compiled, nor is it clear whether the Federalist Society information is accurate.

Another document, compiling internal Justice Department "talking points" about the fired prosecutors, disparages two U.S. attorneys -- in identical language -- about immigration enforcement.

Gonzales testifies before the House Judiciary Committee next Tuesday. Be sure to have plenty of popcorn on hand -- it's gonna be a doozy.

Document dump from House Judiciary Committee

Well, the predicted doc dump has been taken occurred, and it's all online for the world to see.

Looks like a lot of e-mails and attachments (some from our old pals Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson), including records of testimony before the committee. Stay tuned ... I'll let people with more time sort through it and pick out the juicy parts.

House sets deadline: August 31, 2008

The House of Representatives just passed a spending bill that would fund military operations in Iraq, but requires that combat troops leave the country by August 31 of next year.

It didn't pass by much, though, meaning a lot of Democrats voted "no."

Before the 218-212 vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told CNN that Democrats had the numbers to pass the bill.

To get the votes, the leadership had to win over anti-war Democrats who felt that the measure didn't go far enough.

But some of the war's most liberal critics said they weren't buying it.

"Four years ago we were told we had no alternative but to go to war. Now we're told we have no alternative but to continue to war for another year or two," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said. "The fact of the matter is we do have alternatives."

Kucinich said, "Congress has the power to stop funding the war. That's what we should do. That's what we should have done and that's what I'm going to continue to work toward. We have to get out of Iraq, period."

However, Rep. James McGovern, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts who had been on the fence, said he would vote yes.

"I have come to the conclusion that defeating the supplemental bill before us today would send a message to George Bush and Dick Cheney that they will continue to have a free pass from this Congress to do whatever the hell they want to do," McGovern said during Thursday's floor debate on the measure.

McGovern's not the only one. Rep. Elijah Cummings, an anti-war Democrat from Maryland who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said he's been getting mixed signals from constituents.

But Cummings said he was ready to vote yes, insisting that Democratic leaders have not twisted his arm.

"A vote against the supplemental would cause us to have a stripped-down bill, and there would be no voice saying, 'Mr. Bush, stop this war immediately.' "

The bill's chances for becoming law aren't that great, speaking objectively. Someone who never speaks objectively agrees:

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday the House bill "has zero chance of being enacted into law."

"It's bad legislation; the president's going to veto it, and Congress will sustain that veto," he said.

But it sends an important message, that the Bush crime syndicate is losing traction and losing support, both on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

Yes, I believe the House should go farther; I agree with Rep. Kucinich and others. But the political reality is that cutting funds lock, stock, and barrel is never going to pass, even in the current climate. We just can't afford ideological purity right now.

Indeed, what the House has done here is not a meaningless gesture. It's an important step towards recognizing that the "war" in Iraq is misguided and futile. If Drunky McStagger and his gang don't recognize that now, they'll be forced to recognized it soon enough.

Subpoenas, bitches!

Let's get ready to rumble.

That noise you're hearing is Rove and Miers crapping their pants.

UPDATE (11:19 am 3/21/07): An excellent comment on Eschaton by David Derbes puts this into better perspective:

Not to rain on the parade, but just voting on the subpoenas is not the same as serving the damn things.

In the way of Congress's polite kabuki, what now happens is that Conyers or someone writes Fielding to tell him, "Well, we have now authorized the subpoenas. Wanna deal?" Fielding will respond in a day or two, probably by Friday, to say, "No," but couched in more polite kabuki.

On Monday or Tuesday next week, there will be a vote by Conyers' committee whether or not actually to issue the subpoenas. There may or may not be some last minute compromises about Rove and Miers (which, frankly, Conyers would be an idiot to accept), and on Tuesday or Wednesday, the subpoenas will actually be served.

Bush or Fielding or Snow or some combination thereof will say, with sorrow, that Bush cannot possibly allow for trusted confidants to testify as it would irreparably damage the ability of future presidents to seek advice, etc etc. Then it's back to Conyers (and similar parallel action in the Senate from Leahy), and after many days of drama it will go to the Supremes.

Bush will, in my opinion, lose, but it's gonna take till June or July to hear this. Their only hope is to run out the clock, and I do not think they will succeed.

You think Bush's approval ratings are low now? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Below 20% by July.

I now think that, barring complete capitulation by Bush on the Rove/Miers testimony, impeachment is inevitable. It may not be fully realized (if Bush resigns, or if time does run out), but it is going to start by October '07.

Two House Democrats voted against the anti-surge resolution

And here they are:

Jim Marshall (D-Ga.)

Gene Taylor (D-Miss.)

Tell Reps. Marshall and Taylor how you feel about their votes in support of the surge.

UPDATE (12:22 am 2/19/07): Here's Jim Marshall explaining his vote:



The salient language:

We're debating today a non-binding resolution to disapprove the Iraqi -- American military surge in Baghdad. We do so knowing Congress cannot manage a war, let alone micromanage one. We do so knowing the surge has begun and will continue despite our debate and vote. We do so hoping our debate will not discourage those called upon to execute the surge. But we also do so knowing that it might.

Mr. Speaker, that's enough for me to oppose the resolution. I will vote "no" on the anti-surge resolution despite the fact that for three years now, I have consistently contended that we should have fewer troops in Iraq, not more. Clearly, the surge is inconsistent with my general view of how to make our effort in Iraq sustainable and winnable. But the anti-surge resolution is akin to sitting on the sidelines and booing in the middle of our own team's play because we don't like the coach's call.

I cannot join mid-play naysaying that might discourage even one of those engaged in this current military effort in Baghdad.

No, Rep. Marshall, your analogy doesn't hold water. People who boo their coach buy a ticket for that privilege. I've been going to Buccaneers games for almost ten years, and I boo Jon Gruden all the time. Of course, I also cheer him when he does something right.

Our ticket to this game (and I don't mean to diminish the efforts of our military by using the word "game") is citizenship, and we boo or cheer our "coaches" by casting votes and by participating in critical dialogue. See, the thing is, Drunky McStagger hasn't done anything right in Iraq, and he deserves all the boos we can give him. (Hell, he deserves impeachment, but that's beyond the scope of this post ...)

I wouldn't worry about discouraging our troops, Rep. Marshall. I'd much rather discourage them than waste their lives on Drunky's vendetta.

Ron Klein to serve as speaker pro tempore today

This isn't earth-shattering news or anything, but it's still pretty cool. I received the following e-mail this morning:

U.S. Rep. Ron Klein to Serve as House Speaker Pro Tempore Friday
Speaker Pelosi Designates Klein to Sit in Speaker's Chair and
Preside Over House Floor

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - U.S. Rep. Ron Klein (FL-22) was appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to preside over the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in her absence this Friday, Jan. 12th. Klein, who is scheduled to take the gavel between 2:00 - 4:30 p.m., will be one of the first newly-elected Members of the 110th Congress to receive this opportunity.

"It is truly a privilege to be chosen by Speaker Pelosi to preside over the floor of the House of Representatives," said Klein. "Sitting in the Speaker's Chair, where so many of those I've admired over the years have sat, is an amazing opportunity, and I will accept this gavel with honor as I represent the families of South Florida in this position."

According to House rules, the Speaker is the presiding officer of the House, and she may appoint a Member as Speaker pro tempore to perform the duties of the Chair for up to three legislative days. As circumstances arise during daily House proceedings, the Speaker may appoint informally a Member to preside during her temporary absence in the House.

Pretty much every member of the House gets to preside sometimes, but it's still cool that my new Democratic representative will be in the speaker's chair today. Hopefully I can get a screen shot from C-SPAN ...

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va. Douchebag)

Virgil Goode, he of the hateful rant against Rep. Keith Ellison's (R-Minn.) symbolic decision to be sworn into Congress using Thomas Jefferson's Koran, is feeling the backlash in his -- and Jefferson's -- hometown:

At first glance, the window on 1st Street seems normal enough: "Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Fifth District, Virginia." Underneath, carefully stenciled in gold paint, as if to meet the approval of the Board of Architectural Review: "BIGOT."

Goode garnered national attention before Christmas with his comments on freshman Minnesota congressman-elect Keith Ellison's plan to be sworn into office using the Muslim holy book, the Koran.

Now take a look at the bigot himself meeting Rep. Ellison on the House floor Thursday afternoon. Note especially who brought Ellison over to meet Goode (look in the Comments if you're stumped) ...



Congratulations, Virgil "BIGOT" Goode! I gleefully announce that today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

(cap tip -- times 2 -- to Plum P)