An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Hit The Road Jack

Guest Post By C.L. Smith

C.L. Smith aka “Leonidas” is a frequent, right of center commenter on The Moderate Voice and has been invited as a Guest Voice.

**********

the_road

Remember the Democratic Oversight that was promised, and Nancy Pelosi’s claim that Democrats would “drain the swamp”? Well seems like they are falling short of these pledges once again.

Via The Hill:

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to keep them from meeting when Democrats aren’t present.

Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.

So where were the Democrats?

A GOP committee staffer captured video of Democrats leaving their separate meeting in private chambers after the mark-up was supposed to have begun. He spliced the video to other footage of the Democrats’ empty chairs at the hearing room, set it to the tune of “Hit the Road, Jack” and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage, where it remained as of press time.

Video here:

Congressional Democrats Run Away From Countrywide Subpoena Vote

After this embarrassment you would think the Democrats might actually hold the vote wouldn’t you? They didn’t, but to show they are serious about “draining the swamp” they took dramatic action. They changed the lock. You just can’t make this up.

Towns’ staffers told Republicans they were not happy about the presence of the video camera in the hearing room when they were not present. Issa’s spokesman said the Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.

Of course Republicans in power were guilty of similar items, and the article goes on to give a good example back from 2003. But isn’t this the type of thing that Democrats were supposed to change once in power? As a moderate right Republican who disapproved of the Bush administration, it was with some relief that I saw Democrats take Congress in 2006 thinking it would provide a balance. By 2009 it is obvious that they are doing no better than their predecessors. Once again I’m reminded of The Who song, “We Won’t Get Fooled Again”, especially this line: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

Time to tell all these Congressional children of both parties to “Hit The Road Jack”. Elect moderates, not the children who are on the far wings of both parties. RINOs and Blue Dogs for real leadership.

  • DaGoat
    Nice post, Leonidas. The Democrats are happily paddling around in the swamp they promised to drain. Hopefully moderate Democrats will realize what many moderate Republicans had to admit over the past several years - their party is a fraud that has no intention of policing itself.
  • JeffersonDavis
    I don't understand Leonidas. Wasn't that the quorum-call bell going off when the democrats left for the chamber? If so, then the video just show the republicans as very early (?). Maybe I'm wrong. Expand if you can.

    I think a better illustration with draining the swamp is with Rangel.

    Jeff
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    You do realize that the reason they switched the locks is because the Republicans had access without a lock and no one else did. Meaning the Republicans could go in any time they liked and the Dems who are in power could not so the Dems changed the locks so that everyone is equal. So unless my sources are totally wrong about that, how is this a problem again? Rangel is a MUCH better example since he is actually a problem.
  • VeratheGun
    Re: Rangel. Agreed on all counts. He has got to go, and in the course of investigation, if he has done anything illegal, he needs to be charged.
  • CStanley
    You do realize that the reason they switched the locks is because the Republicans had access without a lock and no one else did

    That doesn't make any sense. How were the Democrats, or anyone else, prevented from entering an unlocked room? And if the Hill article is correct, the Democrats explicitly stated that they put the lock on in order to retaliate (I think the exact quote was that they did it because the "Republicans don't know how to behave" and then they added some nonsense about use of taxpayer funds.)

    I mean, this is certainly gamemanship, and a bit juvenile, but it's still disappointing that the Dems are clearly looking to stall any proceedings about oversight of the Countrywide mess. That scandal may or may not be as bad as Rangel's misdeeds, but it does need to be addressed.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    The Hill article says nothing about how the door locks were changed but according to the below huffpost article
    "There was a back door to the main hearing room from the Republican offices that had the lock on the inside, not the outside like all the other doors," a committee source e-mailed the Huffington Post. "Therefore the Republicans could walk into the hearing room anytime they wanted to without anyone knowing it.
    "Since Rep. Issa has been shooting campaign-style videos in the hearing room (which, according to the House rules the Chairman has control over) we reversed the lock so that all the doors to the hearing room lock the same way. They continue to have full access to the room whenever there is committee business or they reserve the room for a meeting -- just like Democratic members -- but now they can no longer go in whenever they like and make campaign and partisan videos."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/house-...
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    So basically they did something that should have been done in 2006 or why is it that Republicans had access and Dems did not?
    Unless the article is wrong but I would need a detailed discription of the lock change to know.
  • DaGoat
    The Rangel situation has been better publicized but the Countrywide sweet deals certainly need attention as well. No reason to neglect one to focus on the other, especially after Pelosi's promises to restore integrity.
  • CStanley
    Your link clarifies what your initial comment didn't, MSF.

    The overall story though is still a matter of he said/he said in terms of what really happened with the scheduling of the oversight hearing, and if in fact the Dems are delaying or trying to avoid the hearings on Countrywide, that's still a problem.
  • AustinRoth
    Except that the Democrats themselves state they changed the locks in retaliation, no other reason:

    Towns’s staffers told Republicans they were not happy about the presence of the video camera in the hearing room when they were not present. Issa’s spokesman said the Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped...Towns’s office said in a statement the locks were changed on Republicans "because they don't know how to behave."


    Full link:
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    I agree that it is still a problem, I also still think Rangel is a bigger problem right now(I really have a long dislike of the guy) and I was speaking frist to the "why are the dems so vindictive" meme which is why I noted the oddity that this had not been done sooner. My question and probably a side bar here but still a good question is why did the Repubs have access in the past and the Dems did not? That sounds incredibly shady to me.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    "because they don't know how to behave." And it WAS against the rules so if I hit a police officer with a rock is he being retaliatory by arresting me or is he upholding the rules. Also why did they have such a privilege.
    Do not get me wrong this is just politics but to say the dems are any worse or any better than present or past Repubs is a joke, and again they retaliated by revoking their PRIVILEGE which they should have never had in the first place. To me this is akin to a CDL driver losing his CDL for dangerous driving and then complaining that he is no longer allowed to drive though he has a regular license. I think I just do not get this one.
  • CStanley
    My question and probably a side bar here but still a good question is why did the Repubs have access in the past and the Dems did not? That sounds incredibly shady to me.

    Even if the Huffpo piece is entirely accurate, at most the GOP had the ability to enter the room without others knowing they were in there. That doesn't mean that the Dems were unable to enter the room freely at any time they wanted to- just that perhaps they didn't have a 'secret' access from their office suites (frankly I have to wonder if there really was a difference, or if the Dems also have the lock facing that way on the door that leads to their offices.) It really is impossible to draw firm conclusions based on the limited, and partisan, reporting on the situation.
  • mikkel
    I have always suspected that these little fits are "planned" inasmuch as it creates a distraction that riles up both parties' partisans and distracts from real issues.

    Of course the refusal of both parties to investigate their members for reported corruption highlights the need for a permanent independent office that does it for them.
  • DaGoat
    to say the dems are any worse or any better than present or past Repubs is a joke

    We are saying they're the same, and that's what should bother you.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    It has bothered me since the early 90's its just that Bushes policies and the Repubs mouthpieces and talking points pushed me far away from the Repubs, a third party could easily gain my vote at any time though.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    Partisan yes which is why I posted the link, hopefully it will be debunked because The Hill article addresses it in no way which also bothers me because to me it does matter.
  • AustinRoth
    TMSF -

    You seem tobe missing the point. They did not change them because of the 'lock' issue: they did it for purely partisan reasons.

    Hope and Change!
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    That is why it matters how the locks were changed and how everyone elses worked. If they had a special privilege that no one else did and it caused no problem then fine. But if they bring gum to school without enough to share with the class they lose their privilege which I again think is fine. If they have different locks then Dems thats wrong but the article in no way addresses that. Which is why I remain on the fence. Allowing a privilege that caused no problem is acceptable until it causes a problem, revoking that privilege when it becomes a problem is also acceptable. Treating the Repubs differently from Dems(meaning dems locks allow them access and repubs locks do not) is unacceptable especially in retaliation for embarrassment and is exactly what the repubs used to do and I would have a large problem. I read the Huff article before the Hill article which complicates my view but enforcing rules is enforcing rules even when you call it "punishment" since that is how we treat rule breakers in our country.
  • CStanley
    I don't get what your big concern is, or what you meant earlier when you said that a rule had been broken.

    There seems to be an attempt in that email sent to Huffpo to imply that the GOP were sneaking into the room at odd hours and making campaign videos- using recess time to falsely film a room devoid of Dems and claim that they weren't showing up for the hearings.

    Yet the undisputed fact is that this video was made at a time when a hearing WAS scheduled, but then supposedly cancelled at the last moment by the Dem leadership. Since they came up with two different reasons for the cancellation, it's their story that seems rather fishy, not the GOP version.

    I actually agree with Mikkel that this is all theater, on both sides...but I don't get what your remaining concern is about the locks because it sounds like you believe an unidentified Dem staffer email to a partisan blogger until that unsourced allegation is proven false.

    When the facts as known support the view that the Dems aren't seriously pursuing the potential corruption between Countrywide and elected officials at this point, I don't know why the smoke and mirrors is what seems to concern you more.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    I think it is fishy as well that they had two reasons, I also think they way the locks were changed matters and if The Hill would have been more specific we would not be having this "what do you mean by the term have sex with this woman" debate which I am starting to think that I am the only one that it bothers so my feelings may be a non-issue.
    "Since Rep. Issa has been shooting campaign-style videos in the hearing room (which, according to the House rules the Chairman has control over) we reversed the lock so that all the doors to the hearing room lock the same way." Is the rule that was broken and the excuse given for the revocation of the privilege. To me it makes a difference if they are punishing them or revoking a privilege, revocation is acceptable punishment is not but not because a rule was not broken that would have been enforced against the Dems by the Repubs but because it looks childish and silly.

    To be honest though this sticking point does not seem to really bother anyone else so it may be best to ignore me on this one because for some reason I cant figure out how it is a non-issue but if everyone is disagreeing with me I will assume you are all probably right and my opinion wrong though I will stick with it, I may just be being a flat earther on this which I think happens to everyone at some point and me more than others.
  • CStanley
    LOL, OK, fair enough. Maybe it will help clarify for you why, at least for me, the lock and camera rule thing sounds like a red herring if I point out that the GOP side of the story is that they convened in the hearing room for a 2 pm scheduled hearing...while the Dems didn't show and were instead meeting privately, and then half hour later announced after the fact that they'd cancelled the hearing.

    Maybe the variance in the way the locks were positioned really did need to be rectified- but it still seems that the Dem who emailed the Huffpo about this sounds like he's seizing on that as a way to imply that the GOP set the whole thing up and snuck in the room to film and give the appearance of Dems ducking out, but if the facts are the way the GOP frame it then they showed up for the scheduled meeting (not using some kind of unauthorized access to use the room.)
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    THANK YOU, now I get it. I was correct that the order in which I read the stories shaded my veiw of the incident. Yea I now think they are more separate issues all together and though I think the locks are interesting its an old issue not a new one and therefore not part of THIS issue. Thanks again, I felt like I was taking carzy pills.

    Leo-Sorry for mucking up your thread, feel free to delete any of my comments to clean it up if needed, I will not take it even a little personally , :).
  • DLS
    Republicans, sidelined again.

    Too bad that "victims" is copyrighted by the other, loonier, less ethical side.

    Oh, well, "Hope and Change" needs all the help it can get, at least until 2011, and hopefully until 2013.
  • Leonidas
    they convened in the hearing room for a 2 pm scheduled hearing...while the Dems didn't show and were instead meeting privately, and then half hour later announced after the fact that they'd cancelled the hearing.


    Yes that is the big issue. Why the democrats tell republicans after the scheduled time they cancelled a meeting, meeting in a private democrat conference instead, and why they cancelled the meeting in the first place about the sweetheart mortgage deals offered to some democrats by Countrywide Mortgage.
  • Leonidas
    Side Note:

    It is C. L. Smith not C. J.
  • DLS
    The bottom line, paraphrasing Da Goat,

    "The Democrats are happily [filling and polluting] the swamp they promised to drain."

    What remains open to question is to what extent they'll have done this, eventually, and how surprising it is or isn't.
  • Corrected.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC