October 3, 2006
Does the Republican House Stand for Anything?
As a matter of fact, even just based upon the last week (let alone the last two years), I would have to say Yes it does: the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives pushed through a number of very important measures in the waning hours of the pre-October recess 109th Congress.
More than one commentator has remarked -- either snidely (if Democratic) or in a world-weary way (Republican) -- that the Mark Foley imbroglio proves that the House "doesn't stand for anything." I beg to differ; actually, quite a few very important pieces of legislation were passed out of the House this term; many in the last couple of weeks, others throughout the two years of the 109th Congress. Squeaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-IL, 100%) can certainly go back home to Illinois and campaign on a record of achievement.
Just within the last week, Republicans pushed the following major (and excellent) bills through to the Senate or to the White House:
- September 26th, 6:10 pm: a bill to protect public seals that contain religious elements (like the tiny cross in the seal of the County of Los Angeles) and other public expressions of religion from lawsuit under the First Amendment's "establishment" clause; 218 Republicans and 26 Democrats supported this bill. The bill has been received in the Senate.
- September 26th, 7:19 pm: a bill to expand and enhance the Border Patrol; passed by voice vote, no roll call available.
- September 27th, 4:45 pm: a bill authorizing military tribunals, almost exactly in the format that the Bush administration proposed; 219 Republicans and only 34 Democrats voted for it.. The bill was also passed by the Senate (54 Republicans, 12 Democrats supporting) and sent to the president for signature.
- September 26th, 12:48 pm: a bill making it a federal crime for a non-custodial person to transport a minor across state lines in order to procure an abortion to evade parental-notification requirements; 215 Republicans and 34 Democrats supported this. 153 Democrats opposed it! What on earth were they thinking? Are they nakedly championing adult cads who get some teenaged girl pregnant, then spirit her to another state for an abortion, so Mom and Dad won't find out? The Senate hasn't received this one yet.
- September 28th, 1:51 pm: a bill authorizing sanctions on Iran if they don't suspend their Uranium enrichment. Passed by voice vote, no roll call available.
- September 28th, 10:19 pm: a bill enshrining the president's terrorist-communications intercept program (NSA "wiretapping") into law; 214 Republicans and 18 Democrats supported.
- September 29th, 6:31 pm: a bill expanding the rights of private-property owners against eminent domain seizures by states or the feds; the aye vote consisted of 194 Republicans and 37 Democrats, and the bill has been received by the Senate.
And although this one was longer than a week ago, it still deserves a round of applause:
- September 20th, 1:11 pm: a bill requiring potential voters show proof that they are American citizens before being allowed to register; the bill passed with 223 Republican supporters and zero Democrats. Evidently, the Democrats support a right of non-citizens to vote in American elections... probably because that's the only way Democrats win close elections anymore.
This alone is enough to demonstrate the gigantic difference between a Republican House of Representatives and a Democratic one, between the honorable House of Hastert and the putative Palace of Pelosi. Of all the 1,432 Aye votes cast on these bills, 1,283 (about 90%) were cast by Republicans; only 10% were cast by Democrats. On most of these votes, more than 90% of the Republican caucus voted Aye, while 80%-90% of Democrats voted Nay.
Bear this in mind the next time some morally outraged Republican (or hissy-fit-heaving Democrat) demands Hastert's scalp on the grounds that he cares about "nothing but pork."
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 3, 2006, at the time of 9:53 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1305
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does the Republican House Stand for Anything?:
Tracked on October 4, 2006 9:51 AM
The following hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu
Not a carbon copy, but distinguishable. Sometimes even in a good way. Yeah, that sounds about right.
The above hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu at October 3, 2006 11:23 PM
The following hissed in response by: Terrye
Anyone who thinks that the REpublican house stands for nothing needs to sit and listen to Pelosi run her mouth for about 15 minutes. Imagine years of that. People need to realize that these folks are just people too and sometimes some of them are going to behave badly.
The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 4, 2006 3:01 AM
The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH
While we are on the subject of Republicans and whether they are, on balance, worth a damn, I was wondering if you have had a chance to read Brad Linaweaver's new book: POST-NATIONALISM: George W Bush as President of the World?
Brad, as you know well but your readers may not, is a natural radical who has the misfortune to hold a largely-conservative, right-libertarian philosophy. For most of the post-9/11 period he has been with the Republicans in the circle of wagons. He would dutifully shoot at the whooping Democrat savages as they galloped by but with a growing sense of envy for their war paint, their flaming arrows and their freedom of motion. With his new book he has slipped out of the circle, vaulted onto a war horse and rode off, firing arrows in all directions. It's not a book that will change your life -- or your mind, for that matter -- but it's an interesting read and offers perspectives you just don't get anywhere else.
As an added incentive for reading my review, I offer a link to Amazon that will allow the reader to buy one of the rare, sure to be valuable, unsigned copies of Brad's book.
The above hissed in response by: BigLeeH at October 4, 2006 6:32 AM
The following hissed in response by: Big D
No argument. Republicans are better for America than Democrats. H
Heck with Pelosi, have you ever listened to Boxer speak? I have trouble coming up with an adequate metaphor to describe her stupidity. Box of rocks? Bag of hammers? Only minus the hammers and rocks.
What is interesting is that she has been this stupid since before she was elected. I remember Alan Cranston. Former senator of California. I would disagree with him, but I never thought him...brain damaged.
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Yes, he gave me a copy expressly to write a review defending the neocon philosophy from his attacks; I've been remiss, but it's only because it slipped my mind. We've discussed it on the phone, but he wants me to write the review so he can publish it in Mondo Cult, his once-a-year magazine.
I like the book, even though I don't agree with much of it. It's certainly worth reading!
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 4, 2006 12:58 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved