Archive for the 'House' Category

The House of Representatives just passed the Employee Free Choice Act, which I wrote about here.  The bill, which would enable workers to unionize with less fear of employer harassment and intimidation, passed overwhelmingly, 241-185.

Although it faces probable filibuster in the Senate and certain veto by Bush - just as he intends to veto 9/11 legislation because it contains a provision allowing unionization - the passage of the EFCA is nonetheless hugely important.  There's legitimate reason to be frustrated with Congressional Democrats for not moving more decisively on withdrawal from Iraq, but they have moved strongly on workers' rights.  As Nancy Pelosi said during debate on the EFCA

The Employee Free Choice Act is the most important labor law reform legislation of this generation.  But this legislation is about more than labor law: it is about basic labor rights, about the rule of the majority free from intimidation, and about protecting jobs.

It is a guarantee - when a majority of workers say they want a union, they will get a union.

To defeat this, Republicans will have to go on record against workers.  Not against unions, but against the millions of non-union workers in this country who want to join unions.  Democrats are forcing them to lay that contempt for workers bare before the nation, in strong contrast to Democratic respect for workers.  Passage of the EFCA through the House - especially by such a large margin - is an incredible step forward for working people.

Update: There's video from the debate at Nancy Pelosi's blog, but especially see Rep. George Miller's powerful statement.

Update II by kos: Two Dems voted against the bill, 13 Republicans voted for it.

Republicans for the bill:

Can you tell Republicans in New England (the one left in the House), as well as neighboring states New York and New Jersey are feeling their impending extinction? This list includes some of our best pickup opportunities in 2008, so they're probably desperate to negate those "Rep. X voted 98 percent of the time with George Bush" attacks.

Democrats against it:

Cue in "Democrats are divided" story...

In true full Broderism, the likes of Reps. Allen Boyd, Dennis Moore, and Mike Ross are trumpeting their moderating influences on the Democratic party in today's Roll Call [subscription]. Here's a choice bit from Boyd:

"Let's face it, we all know that both parties, in large part, are controlled by extremes that in some cases are different from what we might represent in the middle," Boyd said. "We don't think the Speaker's philosophy or her particular district's philosophy is important. What we think is important is the management style she uses. How she is inclusive with us, how she acts."

We all know that Nancy Pelosi is an extremist? Only Allen Boyd and his band of 44 Blue Dogs represent the middle? The remaining 190 Dems are a bunch of far-left whacked out extremists? Yes, Allen Boyd, because you have such a positive attitude toward your party and because you are so helpful to the Democratic cause, by all means, Speaker Pelosi should include you. Just think about what you did for us on Social Security. You were so absolutely helpful on that one, being the only Democrat to support Bush's Social Security privatization plan. What a triumph of moderation and bipartisanship that one was.

In all seriousness, the arrogance with which Allen and his merry band of Blue Dog Dems are approaching their role in the party is an obvious problem for leadership. Consider this:

On a recent weekday afternoon, leaders of the moderate group gathered in the office of Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the coalition's communications chairman, to discuss their place in the new majority, as well as their aims for the 110th Congress. In addition to Ross and Moore, the group included Democratic Reps. Allen Boyd (Fla.), the group's administration chairman, Stephanie Herseth (S.D.), the group's whip, and John Tanner (Tenn.), a co-founder of the Blue Dogs and a current co-chairman of its political action committee.

"I think one of the things that's different now, I think there was a time when Blue Dogs were looked at by some Democrats as though perhaps they weren't really Democrats and I think that's no longer the case," Ross said.

"I think people are recognizing that not only do we represent the middle, which is where we believe the American people are and certainly where we are, I think people within our own Caucus now recognize that we have created the majority and that we have done some pretty heavy lifting as a group to ensure that Democrats did regain a majority...."

In addition, Boyd asserted that Democratic leadership has "been very inclusive when it comes to the committee assignments. They have been very inclusive when it comes to consulting us on legislation. We meet with them on a regular basis."

Did we become a parliamentary government while America wasn't looking? Do we now have a coalition government in which this splinter group of Democrats, a minority of the voting bloc, can work against the will of the majority to gum up the works?

But wait, it gets better:

"We think this is the group that represents where the greatest bloc of Americans are — toward that big middle. Not far left, not far right, but that big middle, that's going to be able to get things done," he added. "And it's going to have to be done on a bipartisan basis."

Did they learn nothing from the previous 12 years in the wilderness? This is not a Republican party interested in bipartisanship. The Bush administration is not interested in working with any Democrats. The Republican party and the Bush administration is interested in using the Blue Dogs as a wedge in the Democratic majority. They are using the Blue Dogs to further nothing but the Republican cause.

The Blue Dog Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are on the vanguard of the new Democratic party--the Democrats didn't so much win in many of these districts as the Republicans lost, and the Republicans lost in large part because of the absolutely disastrous Iraq war. A war which the American people expect a new Democratic Congress to do its utmost to get us out of. And how do they repay that trust the American people have given them? They work actively to derail the Murtha plan, a plan which, btw, a majority of the American public supports!

The Blue Dogs have led the way on some important fiscal issues, taking the lead on pay-as-you-go funding limitations being passed in the first 100 hours. They should stick with the fiscal issues, those core issues for them. And stay the hell out of the Iraq debate if they can do nothing more than splinter the caucus.

Good news:

Former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) has accepted a job as Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell’s Business Advocate, making it highly unlikely that he will run for his old seat [...]

His decision indicates that Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who defeated Simmons in the closest race of the 2006 cycle, will have a smoother re-election ride than many anticipated.  This has traditionally been tough terrain for national Republicans; President Bush only won 44 percent of the vote here in 2004.

Granite State Poll (PDF). 2/1-5. Adults. MoE 4.2% (9/06 results)

Is there any doubt that we're seeing the Iraq factor at play? No wonder Sununu is literally running away from reporters. Both are now under the 50 percent "endangered" line.

While Gregg has four years to try and turn things around, Sununu must face the music next year. And with the resurgent New Hampshire Democratic Party gunning for him, and a near-bankrupt NH GOP forced to send a big check to their Democratic counterparts every year for the next five years, his prospects look tough indeed.

Meanwhile, let's check in with our new Democratic House incumbents:

That's a fantastic job by Shea-Porter of boosting her name ID. She'll need it as she faces a tough rematch against the very guy she ousted last year, Jeb Bradley.

Race Tracker wiki: NH-Sen, NH-01, NH-02

The House passed the anti-escalation, non-binding resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 63, by a vote of 246-182.

Here's the text of the resolution:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

           (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

           (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

On to the Senate for tomorrow's vote. Four GOP Senators (Senators Smith, Warner, Snowe, and Collins) have said they will back the resolution. McCain will apparently not be voting, Lieberman is unlikely to, as he doesn't work on Saturdays. And of course, we have Lindsey Graham:

"I will do everything in my power to ensure the House resolution dies an inglorious death in the Senate," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Why? Because Republicans admit, "If we debate the surge, we lose."

Why? Because America opposes the escalation.

And if you want to know why the "Pelosi wants a luxury plane" fake scandal is total bullshit, read here.