While hearing for years that we "can't move to the right because we won't win elections" it seems that there might be some concerns brewing.
For a long time, the "wizards of smart" have assumed that Republicans will vote for a Republican 'no matter what'. It doesn't matter how they vote, or what legislation they support, as long as they are a candidate with an "R" by their name and they are running against an 'evil' Democrat, the assumption is that Republicans will vote Republican.
Perhaps the local wizards of smart are starting to retool their political calculators based on many examples over the last few years that disprove this failed 'theory'.
Hence, the campaign effort called the American Leaders Lecture Series. The letter announces that the first speaker will be the very conservative House Whip Eric Cantor (VA). Representative Cantor is a member of the conservative House Republican Study Committee. The letter also announces two other prominent conservatives, Newt Gingrich and LA Governor Bobby Jindal, as future speakers.
Is Congressman Dent trying to appear more conservative? He is a member of the very moderate (to liberal) Mainstream Republican Tuesday Group. This group has been devastated in recent elections and I doubt if it was because previous members were not moderate enough. In fact, I have argued before that moderate Republicans are losing BECAUSE they are moderate Republicans. Why vote for Liberal Lite when you can get the real brand?
I would be very encouraged if Congressman Dent moved to the Right, or at least abandoned the ludicrous strategy of moving to the Left. In his letter, Congressman Dent declares, "They (speakers) have said they are very interested in coming to support my re-election effort because they believe, as I do, that by limiting what government spends and takes from our families we increase our opportunity for prosperity."
Great words, but what does the record for 2009 show so far?
Here is a compilation of the most important pieces of legislation for the year. I eliminated all the routine procedural votes, naming of post offices and courthouses, Resolutions that praise puppy dogs and blue skies (a bit sarcastic), etc. These are all FISCAL issues, none of those dreaded pesky social issues that the Big Government Republicans keep using as a smoke screen.
The Bill # will provide a link to the actual Roll Call vote. The Bill Title will provide a link to a descriptive summary of the bill. Then the votes for Eric Cantor, Charlie Dent and Nancy Pelosi are provided. For instances where Nancy Pelosi did not vote at all (which is typical for any House Speaker) I substitute the vote of Maxine Waters - an indisputable ultra-liberal House member.
HR12, Paycheck Fairness Act No; Yes; Yes
HR2, CHIP Reauthorization Act No; Yes; Yes
HR2, CHIP Reauthorization Act No; Yes; Yes
HR384, TARP Reform and Accountability Act Yes Yes Yes (Waters)
S181, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act No; No; Yes
HR2, CHIP Reauthorization Act, Concurrence with a Senate Amendment No; Yes; Yes
HR143, Removal of Rangel as Chair of Ways and Means Committee pending completion of investigation
Note: Motion to table this effort. “No” was for a vote on this measure.
No; Voted “Present”; Yes (Waters)
HR80, Captive Primate Safety Act No; Yes; Yes
HR86, Omnibus Appropriations Act No; Yes; Yes (Waters)
HRES189, Flake Resolution to investigate earmarks and campaign contributions
Note: Motion to table this effort.
No; Voted “Present”; Yes (Waters)
HR1106, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act No; No; Yes
HRES212, Flake Resolution to investigate earmarks and campaign contributions
Note: Motion to table this effort.
No; Voted “Present”; Yes (Waters)
S22, Omnibus Public Land Management Act No; Yes; Yes
HR1262, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Authorization Amendments No; Yes; Yes (Waters)HR1388, Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act No; Yes; Yes
HR1586, Penalize TARP Recipients Yes; Yes; Yes (Waters)
HR146, Omnibus Public Land Management Act, Concur with Senate Version No; Yes; Yes (Waters)
HRES286, Flake Resolution to investigate earmarks and campaign contributions
Note: Motion to table this effort.
No Vote; Voted “Present”; No Vote (Waters)
HRES295, Flake Resolution to investigate earmarks and campaign contributions
Note: Motion to table this effort.
No; Voted “Present”; Yes (Waters)
HRES312, Flake Resolution to investigate earmarks and campaign contributions
Note: Motion to table this effort
No; Voted “Present”; Yes (Waters)
HR1139, COPS Improvement Act No; Yes; Yes (Waters)
HR1746, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act No; Yes; Yes (Waters)
SCONRES13, Conference Report on Congressional Budget for 2010
Note: A prelimnary approval of budget for 2010
No; No; Yes
HR1913, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act No; Yes; Yes
HR627, Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act No; Yes; Yes
HR1728, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act No; Yes; Yes (Waters)
HRES425, Flake Resolution to investigate earmarks and campaign contributions
Note: Motion to table this effort.
No; Voted “Present”; Yes (Waters)
HRES432, Providing for oversight of weapons acquisition Yes; Yes; Yes (Waters)
S454, To improve the organization and acquisition of weapons systems Yes; Yes; No (Waters)
HR2187, 21st Century Green Public School Facilities Act No; Yes; Yes (Waters)
HR627, Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act (all but Senate Amendment 512) No; Yes; Yes (Waters)
HR627, Concur with Senate Amendment 512 Yes; Yes; No (Waters)
HR915, FAA Reauthorization Act No; Yes; Yes (Waters)
HRES500, Motion to refer
Note: To investigate Murtha and his relation to PMA scandal
No; Voted “Present”; Yes
HR2200, Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act Yes; Yes; Yes
HR626, Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act No; No; No Vote (Waters)
The conclusion seems obvious. Charlie Dent votes more often - on important bills - with the Leftist members of Congress rather than the House GOP Whip (Whose job it is to garner Republican votes!). Also, on votes that affect pork, Charlie has voted "Present" quite often. Look to the vote on Charlie Rangel's removal as Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee until an investigation is completed about his tax problems. Rangel hands out the 'checks' to fellow congresspersons. Also, look to the vote on Murtha's problems with pork recipient PMA. Another "Present" vote. And Charlie has consistently refused to support Congressman Jeff Flake's attempts for a review of earmarks and campaign contributions.
But you can draw your own conclusions if you wish to do some more research with the links provided.
UPDATE 6/18, 14:30: An anonymous poster pointed out the fact that Dent's votes on the removal of Charlie Rangel (HR143) and for an investigation of Murtha & PMA (HRES500) required a "Present" vote due to his position on the Ethics Committee which requires that he recuse himself from such votes. I assume the poster is correct but I have not confirmed this.
Again, readers can reach their own conclusions based on the other 34 votes.
18 comments:
The house Republicans need to find real conservatives to fill the positions of politicians like Dent. They also need to fins people with spine.
You do realize that all the "Present" votes you site are because of the fact that Dent serves on the Ethics Committee. House Rules state that Ethics Committee members are only allowed to vote "Present" on matters before their committee like the Rangel investigation or the Murtha earmarks that the Flake Resolutions deal with. Is this example of shoddy research typical of your writing?
That does not explain the vote on the Flake resolutions. I will clarify the Rangel and Murtha votes.
Thank you for the clarification.
However, clarify "shoddy research". You adequately explain two out of 36 votes.
Any House Resolution that sends a matter before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, on which Dent serves, would require Dent to recuse himself. Checking your list by using the links you provide -- this eliminates all of Dent's "Present" votes.
This removes another six supposed questionable votes from your list -- for a total of 8 removed thus far. So, out of your original 36 criteria votes your reasoning was wrong over 20 percent of the time. Hopefully, you're not a CPA in your day job.
You list a Captive Primates Bill but you don't list the Congressman's NO votes on the Stimulus Bill or the recent Clunker Bill. That seems like cherry-picking. Here's what I see
Dent voted "NO" on the Making Me Pay Other Peoples' Mortgages Act and "NO" on Obama's Budget.
The author writes: "These are all FISCAL issues, none of those dreaded pesky social issues that the Big Government Republicans keep using as a smoke screen."
Then the author includes a Hate Crimes Bill in his list.
Does the author need someone to explain what a social is to him?
Dent voted for the Omnibus Bill which expanded government spending by 8% - more than twice the rate of inflation.
And, if you check the primate bill, it EXPANDS federal staff positions to enforce the act. That is a FISCAL matter.
Your talking about monkey bills when a commenter is talking about your analysis being fundamentally-flawed? What kind of credibility is that?
Huh? The "monkey bill" was an actual vote by Congressman Dent. As is the other 33 out of 36 votes I show.
How is that fundamentally flawed? I guess that the Congessonial Record is "fundamentally flawed".
Dent routinely votes AGAINST his Republican colleagues and votes WITH liberal Democrats. Why? To appease liberals or because he disagrees with many principles of his GOP colleagues? I would like an answer.
If anything is "fundamentally flawed" it might be the Congressman's ideology.
That doesn't answer the question. You say that Charlie Dent votes like a Democrat, but you argue like one.
Why won't you comment on the fact that all the "Present" votes you listed don't mean anything as one comment noted?
You fail to admit that you included a bill on Hate Crimes in your list, when you specifically said that you would not count social issues.
You're not very good at putting together a credible case. Your work is slipshod and you dummy-up when your errors get noted.
Anon 9:05,
Uh, I posted a correction as BOTH a comment and an Update on the original post.
The Hate Crimes Bill vote is ONE ISSUE that is not fiscal.
So, who argues like "a Democrat"? What about the 30 other votes where Dent vote for MORE GOVERNMENT and MORE SPENDING?
And, lastly, how did I "dummy-up" about my "errors"? I posted an immediate correction about Charlie recusing himself from two votes which he had to as a member of the Ethics Committee.
Then you focus on one other MAJOR bill by claiming it is a social issue. However, the other 33 bills you ignore.
Who argues like a Democrat? If the votes were so clearly obvious, who does Congressman Dent typically vote against the GOP House Whip and vote WITH Nancy Pelosi/Nancy Waters?
Oops, before shawn, er, whoever, attacks by "shoddy research" let me correct another mistake.
I stated above that Charlie Dent votes more often with Nancy Pelosi/Nancy Waters than he does with GOP leadership in the house.
Of course, I meant that he votes more often with Nancy Pelosi/MAXINE Waters.
As we all know, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are well known moderates.... -cough-
Whoops. It looks like you still can't add or argue. All of the votes, not just two, where Dent voted Present, wouldn't count since they would all go before the Ethics Committee and he voted as he was required to under House Rules.
Learning how to read and reason will greatly aid your ability to develop a rational argument. We all await your growth in those areas with bated breath.
It's amazing how you try to dissemble with each post. It's not "33 other votes." Removing the Present votes makes it 27 votes.
You can't even be honest enough to remove from that total the votes where Dent sided with Cantor.
Those who are interested can further check this blogger's inaccuracies. For instance, the blogger calls out Dent's vote on HR 1746. Of course, he doesn't mention that the bill passed with twice as many Republicans supporting it as opposing. You can verify this by finding it yourself on www.thomas.gov.
You are indeed a very shoddy researcher and blogger. Tell me that your day job doesn't involve quality control!
Information from this site as a basis for thoughtful comment is about as useful as a two-legged table.
Wow, Shawn, er, the Dent political fast response team...
Okay, I only got "27" votes right - which means that Charlie voted against the GOP and with the Big Spending, Big Government liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.
Hmm... you are really building a great case.
But, you miss the point. I told the readers to conclude nothing. They could do the research themselves. Interestingly, I have already received a number of phone calls and emails about this matter. And they were not nit-picking about one or two votes. The conclusion is quite obvious despite the "shoddy" and sad P.R. attempts to parade some known conservatives through town.
It opened up their eyes.
If you are so concerned about Charlie Dent's future, perhaps you should advise that he vote like a reasonable FISCAL CONSERVATIVE instead of as a Big Government liberal appeaser. And call Shawn, his political adviser, who is handling Dent's career with the same deftness and brilliance as he handled Jane Ervin's. I remember that chowderhead declaring that the 70% tax hike would have no impact and that Ervin would win "easily".
Of course, I tried to talk to him (before I started to point out that the Emperor has no clothes) and I was met with quite a bit of condescending talk about how others "know better" about how to handle the future of the GOP.
With geniuses like that, it is no wonder that the GOP is in the trouble that it is!
Alas, the blogger proves my point. He's still trying to pull the wool over your eyes, perhaps thinking that his subterfuge will go unnoticed.
Look at the lastest post. "Okay, I only got 27 votes right," says he. But wait a moment, that doesn't represent the number of times that Dent actually did vote with Congressman Cantor. That removes another 8 votes away from the blogger's analysis. Perhaps he could try blogging something along these lines: "Okay, I was wrong about 50 percent of what I wrote."
This doesn't even begin to take into account the fact that he represents a vote on the Children's Health Insurance Program three times. (An aside someone call Newt Gingrich and tell him this blogger disapproves of his politics. It was Speaker Gingrich who devised the CHIP program as part of Welfare Reform.)
Isn't this blogger basically admitting to anyone who reads this blog that he's either incompetent or a liar?
Well, I've got him down to only 19 variances. I suppose I could whittle him down even further. Could you imagine his response?" Okay, I was right on 4 votes!"
Forget the numbers arguement,why doesn't Charlie just vote as a Republican should more often?
Charlie does vote like a Republican, the problem is this blogger lies like a Democrat :)
Well, it is obvious that I will have to compile an actual percentage vote. Even the critic admits that it is "8" out of "27". That is a percentage of 30% that Dent votes with the House GOP Whip on major bills.
I will also have to compile the total amount of spending due to these votes.
I will also have to compile a listing of all the major conservative groups and how Charlie rates as a fiscal conservative.
And the critic then complains that I count multiple votes for CHIP. Yeah, there were separate bills. Remember, there is usually a House Bill, a Senate version, then they get together to hammer out a compromise which both houses need to approve.
The critic has only pointed out that Congressman Dent's record requires much more detailed scrutiny. It might also be worth it to review 2008 and 2007 as well.
More to come I guess...
Post a Comment