Links in “House”

As of Wednesday, November 7, the electoral count (FoxNews) stands at 303 – 206 in Obama’s favor, with only Florida having yet to complete their tallies. Aside from being shocked (I allowed myself to succumb to the eccentricities of the Morris/Rove/Barone/Ulsterman-WHI “Romeny’s-going-to-win-by-a-landslide” contingent), the bottom line is that Team Obama simply had a better ground game:

The story of the election: Obama turned out his base. As a percentage of the electorate, young voters (18-29) actually increased by a point. So did turnout among Latinos. And turnout among blacks matched 2008. O’s ground game was simply amazing.

On the exceptionally negative side, the following must be fully understood (and I’m convinced it’s not, by anyone on any side, yet):

• The Senate (for the next two years) is controlled by the Democrats. This means that even if the GOP-controlled House decides to, say, draw up articles of impeachment over a hot issue like the Benghazi massacre, it would very likely be stopped in the Senate
• The House, while still solidly in the control of the GOP (with no less Tea Party influence than it is now), gives Obama every chance to simply route Executive Orders around them without thinking twice

On the other hand, now that there are 30 States with Republican Governors, Tenth Amendment-based initiatives have become significantly easier to come by. Consider that 6 out of 10 such ballot initiatives passed last night by overwhelming majorities. Ironically, they were set to satisfy both the right (healthcare mandate nullifications) and the left (consumer-based marijuana usage).

Could it be possible that if the Federalists in DC become so overly zealous with mandates that the States — at least the most red ones — would rise up and say, “no?” Maybe, but the threat of federal money removal is a strong incentive to keep States in line.

Beyond the statecraft of it all, it is my opinion that the GOP needs to take itself to the proverbial woodshed and get a personality makeover:

• This race was not about ideology. On a local basis, Tea Party-backed candidates had no problems getting elected. It was only when certain pro-life senatorial candidates decided to dive head-first into foot-in-mouth syndrome did they lose handily
• White people no longer make up the majority of the electorate, even as much as they did ten years ago. Multiple ethnic groups are becoming bigger pluralities in the electorate
• Hurricane Sandy was Obama’s uncontrolled November Surprise. His being seen alongside New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was essentially the icing on the cake, likely giving Obama the extra point or two of “looking presidential” that he needed at the right time to push over the finish line. Why? Well, if Obama can be seen amicably appearing to deal with a disastrous situation next to an exceptionally outspoken Republican Governor, then the perception is that Obama can just as easily reach across the aisle as Romney could have
• Let’s not forget that it is nevertheless exceptionally difficult to unseat an incumbent President.

In my view, here is a key question that the GOP must successfully answer if it is to succeed at the national level, going forward:

Why is it that Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. can win a landslide victory from the Mayo Clinic but Rep. Allen West cannot? Seriously. What’s the difference?

I think the GOP has a trust and an image problem with a growing segment of the electorate. Why can’t the GOP be trusted with “minority” votes, even though its ranks include the likes of Gov. Mendendez, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley, and Sen. Rubio?

Tell me this: What’s the first reaction that Democrats have when the GOP speaks of one of the aforementioned individuals? You’re just putting a token [insert favorite ethnic group here] on the dashboard; it doesn’t mean anything.

Am I right? OK, then how does one turn this around?

Hint: In 2016, if the GOP does not nominate someone like Sen. Rubio as its standard-bearer, they will lose. I’m going to go ahead and call it, merely one day after the 2012 General Election.

Do I think the GOP has a conservative message issue? Yes. But conservatism isn’t the actual issue. Remember the bad logic? Just because someone possesses contraception doesn’t mean they will automatically go out and have sex with someone. Just because someone possesses a gun doesn’t mean they’re going to automatically shoot someone. Wrap such social issues up in libertarian terms and you win the argument.

The path to victory: Aggressively reach out to ethnic groups like your party depends on it (I think it does), and demonstrate that taking responsibility is both a good and cool thing to do. Then, celebrate the crap out of such victories at all levels in the organization and, in time, the trust and image issues will take care of themselves.

People think the system is stacked against them, and maybe it is. But people also conduct their lives in a generally conservative manner. Take advantage of that.

Update:

This comment from Prof. Jacobson’s bog links to EvilBloggerLady, further confirming my thoughts RE: expanding demographics (read: you can’t count solely on only white people voting with you to win nationally anymore).

Also: Wisconsin’s State government is now in full GOP control, even though they’re not sending senatorial candidate Tommy Thompson nor their share of electoral votes for Mitt Romney to Washington.

Regardless, Veep candidate and re-elected Representative from the same State Paul Ryan will be back in the next Congress, still chairing the Budget Committee in the House.

The House firewall remains intact, for now.

-Phil

[email protected]

Blog note: I’m in the process of deleting spam users from my site. Therefore, you might have to re-register to comment. My apologies for the inconvenience, if any.

Clerk of the House Roll Call for HR 1.

FreeRepublic.com info:

Economic Stimulus Bill passes House by vote of 244-188 . The GOP caucus was unanimous in their opposition.

[11] Democrats voted against the Stimulus.

Similarly, Clinton’s first budget passed with no GOP support either.

From RedState.com:

Update: Final vote: 244-188. It was 242-190 moments before they gaveled it — with every last Republican voting no — but two no votes switched at the last minute and they didn’t say who they were. I assume they’re Blue Dogs, but I’ll check. Either way, for good or ill, this is entirely the Democrats’ baby now.

The following Democrats voted against the stimulus bill:

Boyd, Bright, Cooper, Ellsworth, Griffith, Kanjorski, Kratovil, Minnick, Peterson, Shuler, Taylor

Makes one wonder if the Democrats will similarly face a major wipe-out in 2010 after this fiasco. (Excellent cartoon by Michael Ramirez)

Update: Here’s an interesting break-down of the background of each Democrat that opposed HR 1 (from a concerned citizen); perhaps now it’s time to contact each of the below thanking them for their principled stances?:

Boyd

Represents rural northern Florida. Blue Dog who considers himself a leader in congress on fiscal responsibility. He criticized the bill for “not address[ing] the issues that we know are at least partly responsible for the economic downturn, and that is years of irresponsible fiscal policies rooted in out-of-control spending and borrowing.”

Bright

Rookie from 2nd district of Alabama, which is relatively poor— more than 17% of people in the district are below the poverty level. Probably thinks of himself as Blue Dog. Former mayor of Montgomery.

Griffith

Bright’s buddy from Alabama, representing the 5th district. Likewise, serving in his first term. From the rural, northern part of the state.

Peterson

Represents massive 7th district of Minnesota, which is largely rural, and was historically held by Republicans. Peterson has held the seat since 1991, and is viewed by both parties as a moderate who truly straddles the fence.

Kajorski

Kajorski has been in Congress since 1984. He represents the 11th district of Pennsylvania, which is largely rural, but contains cities like Scranton and Hazelton. Kajorski actually has some reasonable, principled, objections to the bill and the process through which it was drafted. He has released a statement that is available on his website here. One of his biggest objections is that only $90 billion of the bill is allotted for infrastructure, and that much of the money in the bill will go to urban areas, instead of rural ones (like his district). Being from Pennsylvania myself, I like this guy, think he is a true blue democrat, and will vote for the final bill if more of the money goes to infrastructure. He’s being honest here, not just politicking.

Shuler

11th district of North Carolina. Very competitive district and not very well established congressman. Quoted in the press characterizing the bill as filled with pork. Rumor has it that he’s angling for the other senate seat from North Carolina.

Cooper

Well-known politician from Tennessee’s fairly liberal 5th district. Seat is incredibly safe. Cooper basically characterized the bill as being full of pork and signaling business as usual in Washington. Calls himself a deficit hawk. See here.

Ellsworth

From the conservative 8th district of Indiana, which includes Terre Haute. Was just re-elected to a second term in 2008.

Minnick

1st term congressman from Idaho’s 1st district. Only Idaho democrat in congress. As a point of reference, George Bush received 69% of the vote in that district in 2004. He has expressed concern about the size and scope of the bill (i.e. that it includes much more than provisions that would create jobs).

Kratovil

1st term congressman from Maryland’s conservative 1st district. In all fairness, Kratovil is on incredibly shaky footing. He won the seat by less than 1% of the votes cast in the district, and was probably helped by the fact that the republican incumbent was unseated in the primary, which allowed Kratovil to square off against a lesser known opponent. About 2 weeks ago, the freshman Congressman was busy offering trite platitudes about the stimulus plan, but never said anything substantive indicating why he would oppose it.

Taylor

4th district of Mississippi. Votes with republicans more than 50% of the time. A handful of Mississippi newspapers tried to reach him after the vote, but he was unavailable.

Among the members who characterized the bill as being full of pork, none provided a detailed accounting of those items in the bill that they believed were wasteful.

Update: Here’s why Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA 1st) voted against the bill.

Update: Per “Reality Check’s” commentary, below, perhaps this will be a little more enlightening as to why the GOP did what they did:

Republicans had no investment in this bill, and the blame for that falls squarely on Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  While Obama met three times with Republican leadership, she refused to meet with her counterparts at all to negotiate on the stimulus.  Her high-handed approach lost Obama any potential Republican support he might have gained as she attempted to stuff a Democrats-only bill down Republican throats.  That’s an odd position to take on something supposedly so important that it required everyone’s support.  It also reveals the real partisan in House leadership.

-Phil

The quote comes from an article in USA Today. The President’s budget proposal is expected to cash in taxpayer’s hard-earned monies at the rate of more than $3.5 “t”rillion:

All this would come at a price to be paid by in the future: annual deficits of at least $500 billion, and a federal debt that would reach $23 trillion in a decade.

Like Ronald Reagan for Republicans 28 years ago, the new Democratic president is staking out his party’s position on spending and taxes. Whereas Reagan sought to limit government, Obama wants to expand its reach. And he’s determined to tackle the nation’s most pressing issues, despite setbacks suffered by fellow Democrats Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter in similar efforts. …

In little more than five weeks, Obama has shown he intends to think big and act quickly. He’s already agreed to spend nearly $800 billion over two years to try to jump-start the economy. He’s not only pressed Congress for the second half of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, he’s reserving the option for another $750 billion on top of that. …

Budget watchdog groups are grousing about deficits projected to drop from $1.75 trillion to $500 billion — but stay in that range as far as the eye can see.

“When you get to the point that you’re pleased to be able to achieve a half a trillion (dollar) deficit when the economy gets going again, you’re in rough shape,” says Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

From RedState.com:

Obama threw down the figurative gauntlet to detractors from his $3,600,000,000,000.00 spending plan, saying “To a bunch of the critics out there, I’ve already said, show me your budget! I’m happy to have that debate.”

Here is the GOP’s budget proposal…

Fellow bloggers such as DigitalMarch are also getting into the action, asking fellow citizens to call, email and/or FAX their Representatives (and soon Senators) to just say “no” to the President’s proposal and to seriously consider saying “yes” to the GOP proposal.

Bottom line: Congress needs to balance the budget, the same way that the GOP did to President Clinton back in the mid-1990s. If all the rest of America — from individual citizens to large corporations — are having to tighten their belts (at best) or having to find an actual job or even a second one to make ends meet (at worst), surely Congress can cut back as well.

Remember, it’s your money they’re appropriating in DC!

-Phil

This issue was first brought up to me by Mountain Publius Goat on my recent interview with Mark McGrew with further reporting from RovingPatrolBlog:

US Code Title 3,15

Counting electoral votes in congress

§ 15.   Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision.

No call for objections were asked. Should this mean the voting in of Obama is illegal? The skipping over the asking if any objections has never happen before.

They know. They all know and they are trying their damnedest not to let it out. [emphasis from posting]

I similarly believe the questions at the end of the quotation are legitimate. I had originally counter-pointed Goat on whether or not any objections were taken prior to the Joint Session. However, perhaps the question should be raised at the Judiciary at this point, for it would appear that the Vice President broke the law (unless someone can show where it was legal to have made this change).

A couple of counter-points follow…

-Phil

“Richard Lawrence” made the following comment:

I would ask both Dr. Hegen <?sp? and Dr. Edwin Vieira …

BTW – Dr. Vieira wll be on PlainsRadio this Friday nite

Didn’t Mr. Cheney open the joint session of Congress by saying, “since there are no (or were no) written objections, we shall …”

As to whether it is appropriate for that particular joint Congressional meeting to ‘open’ like that or whether or not Robert’s Rules of Order were to be or should have been followed, I do not know.

And commenter “Arlen” (of InvestigatingObama fame) had this to say:

Frankly, I haven’t taken the time to look further into it, but one reader posted this comment over at Investigating Obama:

The best chance at invalidating Obama’s Election Day victory was last week, as the Electoral Vote was being counted during a joint session of Congress. Quoting from an entry on the yourfellowcitizen blog,

“Under federal law an objection to a state’s electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress’s counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.”

We are beginning to get a better answer to all the above. Per “Justin Riggs,” prolific blogger at yourfellowcitizen.com, via another comment:

In both 2000 and 2004, objections were raised; not after, but during, the counting of the votes. In 2000, the Congressman had no Senator, and the objection was dismissed. In 2004, a Congressman and a Senator signed an objection, the joint session was dissolved, it was debated for two hours, and the Congress came to a conclusion. I’ve got transcripts of the three years available, if anyone wants them.

According to a report in today’s Washington Times, Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. David Obey (D-WI) is being questioned over an earmark for national parks — larger than the service’s entire national budget — could be benefiting the chief lobbyist’s senior VP of government affairs, Craig Obey, the Representative’s son:

A top House Republican is demanding an investigation into whether the more than $2 billion for national parks in the House stimulus package is proper in light of the fact that the chief lobbyist for the National Parks Conservation Association is the son of House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey.

NPCA is a major player in advocating for national parks funding, and its senior vice president for government affairs is Craig Obey, son of the Wisconsin Democrat who has long been his party’s top Appropriations Committee member.

The money included in the stimulus bill that passed Mr. Obey’s committee – $2.25 billion – was about equal to the National Park Service’s total yearly budget, and would be a staggering increase and almost three times the $802 million that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved for park spending in its stimulus bill. …

“It really does beg the question of, is this an earmark, is this a family connection and should it have been disclosed at least in the spirit of what the Democrats said they wanted, and the answer is it should have been disclosed,” Mr. Issa said. …

Mr. Issa, though, said the request was so large that it raised questions – not least because he doubted the Park Service could spend a fraction of the money during the next two years, when the stimulus bill is supposed to be critical.

“It gives them a slush fund they can use for all kinds of things for years to come,” Mr. Issa said, adding that the big discrepancy between House and Senate funding raised the question of whether the money was a payoff of some sort.

Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said the total of the House spending request closely matched the NPCA’s own wish list, issued late last year.

“When these numbers come close to somebody’s wish list, I think it’s critical to look and follow up on how this money gets spent on the other side,” he said.

Mr. Issa said parks money raises the question of whether there’s a political payoff for Democrats, and he said the same question should be asked about many items in the bill.

“Are there tens or hundreds of billions of dollars going out to groups that will in fact politically be helping the majority or the president in their re-election?”

Is it any wonder the that Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill wants to move as quickly as they can to get this monstrousity of a pork bill through the Legislative branch before anyone finishes reading everything that the bill contains? After all, look at what AmericasRight.com has recently reported from The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation:

• $7.7 billion for various upgrades and work done on federal buildings
• $5.2 billion for voter fraud experts ACORN and other “neighborhood stabilization” groups
• $2.4 billion for carbon capture projects
• $1 billion for AMTRAK
• $650 million–more–for coupons for the conversion to digital television
• $600 million for federal automobiles
• $400 million for research into global warming
• $335 million for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases
• $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts

Tell me — what, exactly, are we trying to stimulate except years-old political pet projects? Maybe the majority ought to at least consider looking at Rush Limbaugh’s plan.

-Phil

Just in case you thought the entire eligibility issue was a big deal, now we have Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) proposing House Joint Resolution 5 (Enter “HJ Res 5″ at Thomas; GovTrack version):

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

This bill was introduced into the Judiciary Committee on January 6 (first day of the 111th Congress) and has no co-sponsors.

Before anyone starts freaking out, remember that a bill such as this must first make it out of committee, then be passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, then be passed by three-fourths of the States before actually happening.

Regardless, this simply goes to show that the minority party or individual (the smallest minority there is) should always have their rights respected so as to provide a check against the majority.

A frequent commenter of this site, “Patrick McKinnion,” makes an excellent counter-point to the above:

I remember the GOP suggesting similar things when Reagan was president. And there’s been bills like this on both sides of the House and Senate for decades now.

I’d say the likelihood of it getting the 2/3rds needed AND then State ratification are in the slim, none, and forget it deparment. And even if it happened, I doubt whoever is in the White House at the time would be “Grandfathered” in.

The only amendment to repeal another amendment, the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th amendment, took a year to pass, and that was only after 13 YEARS of increasing unpopularity with the 18th. There’s no signs the American people are that unhappy with the 22nd.

I doubt it will fly.

-Phil