House Republicans, pissed at the Dems for planning to vote today on contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, have been disrupting proceedings throughout the day by calling a series of procedural protest votes that do absolutely nothing but eat up time. Childish, huh? Well earlier today Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balert (R-FL) called a motion to adjourn, right in the middle of the memorial service for the late Rep. Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in Congress, forcing members to file out of the service and onto the floor to cast their vote, or risk having the House shut down for the day.
CSPAN provided split-screen coverage of the memorial service continuing, as House members filed into the chamber to cast their votes on this purely obstructionist maneuver. (Hat tip Mother Jones.)
Really… how petty and disrespectful can you get?
The Republicans in Congress are not proud patriots, they’re petty assholes and bullies, but who didn’t know that?
Goldy,
Is Reichert part of this?
Maybe I meant “petty assholes and boors.” I think that says what I think a little better. Low-class-havin’-motherfuckers.
Wow, that’s seriously disrespectful. If the GOP has any decency left, they should censure Mr. Diaz-Balert.
1,3 You mean along with being liars, thieves, murderers, perverts and traitors, don’t you?
Lame. Petty, stupid and just plain lame.
4 “Republican” and “decency” don’t belong in the same sentence…other than their having twisted the term to refer to their own obsession with other peoples’ sex lives.
I used to think that having some Republicans in Congress was a good thing because debate is good. The current crop of congressional Republicans, however, brings nothing to the table. Vindictive childishness does not provide ideological balance.
Another racist move by republicans.
Marvin, I answered your charges or racism on the open thread.
Have House Democrats, throughout the history of the United States, ever disrupted proceedings by calling a series of procedural protest votes?
Case closed.
Troll @ 10,
“Have House Democrats, throughout the history of the United States, ever disrupted proceedings by calling a series of procedural protest votes?
Case closed.”
So…by your logic it is ok for, say, Muslims to kill Christians, because Christians have killed Muslims in the past, right?
Troll idiot:
Interpretation of troll comments;
You guys did something, nyah, nyah
Case closed
The point (dear foolish one) is that republicans disrupted a tribute to a respected member of the house who died and use petty vindictive politics even when there is a serious tribute.
what a bunch of whiny little children who can’t take reponsibility for anything.
Oh – and press on with the contempt – the Bush administration is lying through it’s collective teeth – like gonzalez and others have lied to congress. Republicans make Roger Clemens look like a truthsayer.
@10
Both do it all the time, but to do it during a funeral for a former member of congress is really low class.
@13
Michael, thank you. You are right. You made my point. “Both do it all the time.” That’s all I was saying.
@14
And will you agree with my point that on this occasion it was really low class behavior?
@10 troll
What a fucking stupid question to ask? Has anyone ever urinated on an American flag? Does that make it right?
Beyond JUST politesse, how many effin Residual Repricans can be called patriots?? What I see is a party that swiftboated Senator Kerry and dissed Max Cleland. I see party that has spread manure over the image of its likley candidate for President this year, accusing him of cowardice while a POW.
This seem party that so easily finds fault with others, is led by man who went AWOL duuring his own national service, dimiddrd tyhr courge of the French nation, and had the gaul to play dress up on the deck of an American carrier.
Now this party is dissing a holocaust survivor. Have you bums no shame?
@15, yes.
@16, SeattleJew, did you see my post on another thread about KIRO’s PD Rod Arquette? I Googled him, and found that a few years ago he fired a Rabbi radio talk host because he had the nerve to try to help Katrina victims without station approval. My point? Don’t have one. Don’t have to. I’m a troll.
SeattleJew asked:”Has anyone ever urinated on an American flag?”
On donkey do that. And… no it isn’t right.
Max Cleland: Didn’t he get the same treatment Tom Daschle received? Voting against his constituency?
Isn’t that the same treatment Al Gore got from Tennessee in 2000 when they voted against him in the POTUS election?
So I now see, if you attack their votin record you are evil.
I’m sorry SeattleJew what did you mean here: “dimiddrd tyhr courge”
Troll
Oh, if you honestly only interested in being a troll, then maybe we should ask Goldy to ban you?
@20 Puddy
Great we agree. NOWS tell me why the Repubican party has become the refuge on unpatriotic cashews?
@17
Wow, how many comments did it take for you to wrap your head around something that was obvious to everyone else on this thread in less than a second?
So why did donkey schedule votes when the day should have been a Tom Lantos celebration of life day, unless of course this was done on purpose?
No SeattleJew we don’t agree. Tom and Max were voted out because they voted against their constituent wishes and their constituents said enough. Where is the diss as you claim? Either you vote what the constituency says or you vote the party line. Since Tom and Max voted party line, the constituents said enough!
23 You’re assuming this creature has a head to wrap around anything.
16 Stephen, do you really need any help answering that last sentence?
SeattleJew, since the title of Horses Ass Comment Section Senior Political Analyst was given to me, I doubt I’ll be going anywhere soon.
By the way, if Rod Arquette would fire a Rabbi for helping Katrina victims, what do you think the chances are he’d hire Goldy back? The man obviously takes orders from Utah. Why else would he fire the Rabbi? The Rabbi host was trying to resettle black Katrina victims in Utah. That’s when he was suddenly fired. Two words: You do the math.
Too bad it’s illegal to beat the snot out of those republican assholes. That’s what they deserve. I hope that in some time where they are experiencing the loss of a loved one – they get similarly disrupted.
Why was the House of Representatives in session in the first place, when a funeral of one of its members was taking place? Regardless of the party affiliation of the deceased member, the House of Representatives should have adjourned temporarily before the funeral started, and then reconvened after the funeral was completed.
It was totally disrespectful of Nancy Pelosi to be holding a House of Representatives session during the funeral of Tom Lantos. And even more disrespectful to be scheduling important business of the House of Representatives, such as issuance of contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, for the same time that this funeral was taking place.
So it seems entirely appropriate for a Republican member of the House of Representatives to vote to adjourn the House of Representatives during the funeral of Tom Lantos. It would have been more appropriate for the members attending the funeral to have stayed at the funeral and allowed the motion to adjourn to pass. That way, they could have stayed at the funeral and the members attending House business could have gone to the funeral.
Of course, the Republican motion sought to adjourn the House until the following business day. But had the Democratic leadership been willing to simply adjourn the House of Representatives for a few hours, such a motion would have passed by unanimous consent prior to the funeral.
AGAIN – WHY DID NANCY PELOSI CHOOSE TO HAVE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN SESSION DURING TOM LANTOS’ FUNERAL?
Also, there is nothing wrong with the procedural votes that opposition members of Congress call. The truth is, most of the time Congress is legally in session, the vast majority of its members choose not to attend the session at any given time. It doesn’t matter what their party affiliation is, or what party is in control of Congress. Normally, when Congress is legally in session, most members are in their offices (or elsewhere), meeting with lobbyists, calling campaign contributors, eating lunch, exercising, or having fun.
So opposition members sometimes call procedural votes, such as moving to adjourn or noting the absence of a quorum, which force all members to do what they legally should be doing in the first place — ATTENDING THE SESSION OF CONGRESS! I don’t see anything wrong with this. In fact, it makes the process legitimate to actually have the members present when serious matters are debated in Congress.
On the other hand, holding debate on whether Congress should hold someone in contempt — DURING THE FUNERAL OF A MEMBER? The decision of the House leadership to conduct this sort of business during a member’s funeral only served to show contempt towards the member. Congress should have been adjourned during the funeral — that way C-SPAN would not have had two different “shows” to split-screen at the same time.
@29
Two words: You do the math.
Brilliant.
To make my position clear, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton evidently need to be held in contempt, and the House of Representatives should do so. Since this is a contentious issue, it may be necessary for the members to actually attend the debate on this matter. The Democratic leadership should definitely press this issue, and even be willing to attend evening sessions if necessary, or to actually meet five full days every week, instead of merely having partial sessions on Mondays and Fridays. But it was tasteless of the House leadership to schedule a session while a funeral of a member was taking place nearby.
@31-32
The Hill is reporting that there was an agreement to keep the House out of session for the memorial. Republicans made it clear that they would put up numerous procedural motions in protest to the handling of the contempt debate. The agreement to keep the house out of session was out of respect to Lantos. It was DEMOCRATS who, during the memorial, put the House back into session, moving forward with the contempt vote. Thus the Republicans did as they advised, which is offer numerous procedural votes to slow down and protest the process.
“Really… how petty and disrespectful can you get?”
Goldy,
That question lies directly at the feet of the Democrat leadership of the House……
@35: Nope – it was republicans who couldn’t wait 20 minutes unitl the service was over and introduced a vote.
Nice try with the wrong facts wrong stuff.
Here is the link:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....t_lant.php
Right Stuff @ 35-36
I am trying to search for objective news coverage of this. From what I have seen so far, the House was actually adjourned prior to the start of the Lantos funeral. But then, House leadership called the House back into session during the middle of the funeral. That seems to be extremely disrespectful, since they should have waited until the funeral was completed to reconvene the House.
Here is today’s House Journal, starting from convening at 10:00 a.m., until the contempt motions matters was completed at 2:22 p.m.:
2:22 P.M. –
UNFINISHED BUSINESS – The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of motions to suspend the rules which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
H. Res. 980:
authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial procedings to enforce certain subpoenas
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 982, H. Res. 980 is considered passed House.
H. Res. 979:
recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 982, H. Res. 979 is considered passed House.
H. Res. 982:
providing for the adoption of the resolution ( H. Res. 979) recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and for the adoption of the resolution ( H. Res. 980) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 223 – 32, 1 Present (Roll no. 60).
1:59 P.M. –
The previous question was ordered without objection.
1:39 P.M. –
On motion to adjourn Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 2 – 400 (Roll no. 59).
1:13 P.M. –
Mr. Diaz-Balart, L. moved that the House do now adjourn.
H. Res. 982:
providing for the adoption of the resolution ( H. Res. 979) recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and for the adoption of the resolution ( H. Res. 980) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas
11:58 A.M. –
DEBATE – The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 982.
11:57 A.M. –
Considered as privileged matter.
The House received a message from the Senate. The Senate passed H.R. 5270.
11:56 A.M. –
On motion to adjourn Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 2 – 390 (Roll no. 58).
11:05 A.M. –
Mr. Diaz-Balart, L. moved that the House do now adjourn.
The House convened, returning from a recess continuing the legislative day of February 14.
10:18 A.M. –
The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is subject to the call of the Chair.
10:03 A.M. –
ONE MINUTE SPEECHES – The House proceeded with one minute speeches which by direction of the Chair would be limited to 10 per side of the aisle
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – The Chair designated Mr. Blumenauer to lead the Members in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The Speaker announced approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
10:01 A.M. –
Today’s prayer was offered by Monsignor Richard W. O’Keeffe, Immaculate Conception Church, Yuma, Arizona
10:00 A.M. –
The House convened, starting a new legislative day.
““This is the height of disrespect and completely shameful. None of their procedural options were denied by starting when we did; they just chose to call for a vote at the most inappropriate time. The idea that Republicans had no choice is preposterous, all they had to do was allow debate to continue for another 20 minutes and the service could have concluded in peace.”
So let me get this correct. The agreement is to recess until after the memorial. The Democrats break the agreement and Republicans suspect fowl play, and put forward their pre-planned procedural motions….And the Republicans are told to be “petty and disrespectful”?
@37 by your logic, why not just wait the extra 20 min to reconvene? Why?
@40 Because then the dims couldn’t have made cheap political hay with it.
The funeral of Tom Lantos was scheduled for 10:00 a.m today in the Statuary Hall in the Capitol (a short distance away from the House chamber — at least in the same building, in any event). I am not sure exactly how long the service was supposed to last.
http://www.c-span.org/content/pdf/lantos021408.pdf
The House convened at 10:00 a.m. for some mere formalities, which start every day’s session under House rules. Hardly anyone attended. These formalities were completed at 10:18 a.m., and a recess was called at 10:18 a.m., subject to being reconvened at the call of the chair.
Some disrespectful member of the House leadership then called the House back into session at 11:05 a.m., evidently while the funeral of Tom Lantos was still going on. A Republican member objected to this, and when House leadership insisted on moving forward with business session, moved to adjourn the House. Rather having the leadership back down on their plans to debate the contempt resolution during the Tom Lantos’ funeral, it was necessary for 392 members of the House to leave the funeral to vote on the motion to adjourn.
All of this could have simply been avoided by waiting to call the House back into session until after the Lantos funeral had been completed.
The other thing interesting is the vote on the actual contempt motion at 2:22 p.m., which was 223-32, with 1 abstention. This is only 256 members present, out of almost 435 (there are a couple of vacancies). The vast majority of House Republicans didn’t even attend this vote, even though they were against the motion. At 1:39 p.m., 402 members voted on the motion to adjourn. So at least 146 members (probably nearly every single one being a Republican) were at the Capitol (having voted minutes earlier on the procedural motion), but deliberately absented themselves from the actual vote.
Republicans should be rightfully condemned for not having the courage of their convictions, and chickening out on the final vote — because they didn’t wanted to be publicly on record as opposing the well-deserved contempt citations. This is a MUCH bigger outrage than the Republicans properly objecting to having the contempt resolution debated during the Tom Lantos funeral.
Troll @ 28,
“SeattleJew, since the title of Horses Ass Comment Section Senior Political Analyst was given to me, I doubt I’ll be going anywhere soon.”
Ummm…you, apparently, gave yourself that title.
Sorry, my poor demented friend. You don’t have the authority to self-appoint a title for Horsesass.
But think about this…I DO have the authority to delete any of your comments where you insist in using your illegitimate “title.”
Okay, let’s look at the actual roll call vote on the contempt resolutions, 223 Ayes, 32 Noes, 1 Present:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll060.xml
All 6 Democratic House members from our state voted AYE. All 3 Republican House members, including Dave Reichert, were too chicken-shit to even attend the vote and go on record. Reichert was in the building slightly earlier today, to vote on the two procedural resolutions in Roll Calls 58 and 59. So Reichert, along with the vast majority of other Republicans, deliberately absented himself.
One Democrat voted No, but that is a common procedural move. One supporter of a motion always votes No, then moves to reconsider. Usually, there is no enthusiasm to reconsider, and the motion (and ability) to reconsider is immediately and permanently laid on the table. This keeps reconsideration from being brought up in the future.
Three Republicans voted Aye: Ron Paul of Texas, who is as consistent in his opposition to government abuse of power, as he is in his opposition to most of what government does. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, who was viewed as a traditional conservative when elected in 1990, but was recently defeated in the primary on Tuesday because of his opposition to the Bush administration abuses of power. And Walter Jones of North Carolina — not sure why, but maybe this fellow has some principles also?
@42 RP
I’ve read that the House Republicans walked out in protest of the Democrat leadership pushing this issue while not addressing FISA……
So I think it was less a matter of being on record for the contempt motion, and more a message to get on with the expiring FISA….
Right Stuff @ 46
So much of the political charade gets falsely labeled on both sides. For example, if the Congress passes a FISA version that contains provisions that Bush doesn’t like — such as a prohibition against waterboarding (okay, that is a hypothetical example) — then Bush will veto the bill, and accuse the Democrats of failing to take action to keep the expiring FISA legislation in force. Or if Congress doesn’t want to retroactively grant immunity from civil liability to the telecommunications company that violated existing law that was in effect at the time.
It is a similar political charade to the stunts that were pulled today by BOTH parties related to the motion of contempt this morning.
@47
Believe me, I know neither side is clean with regards to “political parlimentary” stunts…
Hey, WTF? You guys can’t take a joke?
‘Sides, Republican members need frequent breaks for public restroom foot tapping.
The big news, however, is the spinal cord of the House democrats has just emerged from hiding. They voted the WH in contempt for hiding behind “executive privilege” for illegal and partisan USAA firings (and the lies and cover-up). All we got from Gonzalez and the others were lies, cover-ups and more lies. Now it comes down to this – does congree have oversight as delegated in the constitution or can the WH claim executive priviledge for anything and decide on it’s own if it will allow testimony before congress.
Mukasey has turned out to be total lackey who has no respect for the law and will do the bidding of the WH. It is time to send it to the courts and to bring the criminals in the WH before congress to explain their lawbreaking.
Correct me if I am wrong anybody, but has the Bush administration formally named anyone to replace John McKay, who they fired over a year ago? The local U.S. Attorney website now lists Jeffrey Sullivan as U.S. Attorney, without any interim designation. However, this is due to the local federal judges appointing Sullivan when the 120 days for interim U.S. Attorneys (reinstated in June 2007 by federal legislation) ran out in October 2007. I have seen nothing about the Bush administration formally choosing Sullivan or anyone else, much less anyone being confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Technically, Bush and Mukasey don’t need to do anything to keep Sullivan in office. Someone who is appointed by federal judges can serve forever, without any need for presidential appointment or Senate confirmation. That person would serve until someone appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate takes over. (Although I guess the President could fire a judge appointed U.S. Attorney, if he or she wanted to, even without a successor being confirmed. Another bridge that may be crossed in the future …)
Dave Reichert recommended three people to Bush almost a year ago — Jeff Sullivan, Mike Vaska, and Rick White. Interestingly, Rick White has not been admitted to practice law for several years now, since he was initially suspended on August 19, 2003 for not paying his WSBA dues. White still hasn’t gotten back into active practice (he paid his back WSBA dues at least, so he is “Inactive” now), and if he doesn’t do so by August 19, 2008, he will have to retake the WSBA examination to practice again.
It does show how little competence or influence Reichert has. Reichert scored only two out of three when recommended even minimally qualified people to serve as U.S. Attorney. And he cannot get Bush to appoint ANYONE from his list to formally fill the position. Not even Sullivan, who is a close Republican ally of Reichert, and whom the U.S. Senate would almost certainly confirm.
And these flaming hypocrites criticized Democrats for allegedly turning Paul Wellstone’s funeral into a “political event”!
This is a perfect illustration of why Obama is wrong, why you can’t make nice with Republicans. Republicans want a war in this country. It’s ass-kicking time. I don’t necessarily mean a shooting war with bullets and dead bodies (God forbid), but they want an uncivil war of words, of bad manners, of cheating and manipulation and power plays — and by God, we should give it to them!! It’s the people’s will. The voters gave us control of congress in 2006 to purge these assholes out of America’s political life. That election was merely a down payment. The GOP needs to die.
Happy to learn of a suitable ending to this Stalinist Pig’s death. He once suggested before my parent’s, that if, I was a more honorable person, I would consider suicide.
Apparently, his oft-alleged Nazi tormentors rubbed off on him.
Pelletizer BULLSHITTIUM Alert @52
Donkey turned the Lantos Funeral into a Political Event. See Puddy comment first @24 then the Richard Pope comments afterward. Donkey like political theatre because their rubes eat it up. People who think see through it.
Pelletizer BULLSHITTIUM Alert @52 ended
Puddybud @ 55
Republicans did the same thing with their walkout stunt immediately after the funeral. And all this over their desire to retroactively immunize telecoms from the past violations of the law.
@57
yes, but at least the Republicans had enough respect to wait until AFTER the proceedings….