Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: Politix

Specter claims Reid deal for Judiciary chair

2010-04-07

Sen. Arlen Specter says he has an agreement with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to become the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but three senior Democrats are blocking the deal. Specter (D-Pa.) has worked diligently behind the scenes to boost his seniority on the Senate Judiciary and Appropriations committees and hopes to settle the issue before the election. “The arrangement I had with Reid [D-Nev.] is that I would have the same seniority as if I had been elected as a Democrat in 1980,' Specter said in an interview with The Hill. “I would be behind [Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick] Leahy [D-Vt.], and when he moved up to chairman of Appropriations, I would move to chairman of Judiciary.' When Specter switched to the Democratic Party almost a year ago, he was given the last seat on the dais of the Judiciary and Appropriations panels. He has since turned into a model member of the Democratic Conference, voting with party leaders more than 95 percent of the time, and worked to convince his fellow Democrats to support his deal with Reid. “Sen. Reid and Sen. Leahy worked it out with half a dozen of my colleagues that I would be ahead of them on Judiciary,' Specter said. “On Appropriations, this is something that Reid is working on now. The issue is not over.' A spokesman for Reid declined to comment. Last month, seven Democrats on the Judiciary panel let Specter leapfrog them in seniority, including Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), vice chairman of the Democratic Conference, and Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the Democratic whip. But three Democrats elected to the Senate after Specter, Sens. Herb Kohl (Wis.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Russ Feingold (Wis.), have balked at letting him cut ahead of them in line for the gavel. “You don't come this far to watch people on the other team cut in front of you,' said a Democratic aide, noting that Specter served nearly 29 years in the upper chamber as a Republican. Another Democratic staffer said the agreement to allow Specter to jump ahead of Schumer, Durbin and other Democrats was in effect “only for this Congress.' Specter is still ranked as the most junior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, according to the panel's website. He is also listed as the lowest-ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Democrats on Appropriations have been less amenable to letting Specter jump ahead of them. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) publicly criticized Reid's agreement when it was announced last year. Since then, Reid has been reluctant to discuss Specter's seniority in public. Democratic lawmakers note that no agreement is final unless ratified by the entire Senate Democratic Conference. But the support of seven Democrats on the Judiciary Committee plus the backing of Leahy and Reid means that Specter could have a strong chance of winning broader conference approval. If Specter were to take over the gavel of the Judiciary panel, he would be in charge of confirming President Barack Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court. Specter played a significant role in shepherding conservative Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito through the Senate when he served as Republican Judiciary chairman from 2005 to 2007. Some liberals haven't forgiven him for his aggressive cross-examination of Anita Hill during Justice Clarence Thomas's 1991 confirmation hearing. Specter later expressed regret for his rough treatment of Hill's allegations of sexual harassment against Thomas. However, Specter sided with Democrats in a high-profile Supreme Court battle several years earlier when he voted against the nomination of Robert Bork. Specter wouldn't have a shot at the gavel until Leahy, who was elected in 1974, left to become chairman of Appropriations, where he ranks behind Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). Inouye, 85, is running for reelection this year and appears to be in good health. But in the Senate, circumstances can change very quickly and the senior Democrats on Judiciary want to preserve their chances of taking over the powerful panel. Specter acknowledged that Reid “had some pushback from the caucus' but said he would not let the issue drop, indicating he may ask the Democratic Conference to vote on the issue before the election. “I'll bring it back to the caucus at the right time,' he said. “ “It may be appropriate to bring it back sooner' than Election Day. Specter may hope to press the issue sooner instead of later, because there's a chance that Reid could lose reelection. Without Reid's backing, Specter's case to preserve his seniority would weaken significantly. Specter's reelection chances would be helped if he could argue to voters that he would be able to use the seniority accrued as a Republican to help Pennsylvania. A new poll by Public Policy Polling (D) shows Specter trailing Republican candidate Pat Toomey by three percentage points, 46-43. The same survey showed Specter, who faces a primary challenge against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), with a 34 percent approval rating. Specter has a close working relationship with Leahy, but he has clashed at times with other Democrats on Judiciary. The Associated Press reported on a shouting match between Specter and Feingold in 2006 after the panel approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. “I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than I am,' Specter shouted after Feingold threatened to storm out of a meeting. “If you want to leave, good riddance.' Feingold shot back: “I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman. See ya!'

Link

-Lurid Crime Tales-

Two Members of Congress Say That If Administration Offered Sestak Job to Drop Senate Race It Could Be a Crime

2010-03-13

(CNSNews.com) -- Two members of Congress said this week that someone in the White House may have committed a crime if they offered Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) an administration job in exchange for him not running in Pennsylvania's Democratic senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, an allegation that Sestak said was true. Meanwhile, despite several media inquiries over the last few weeks and the comgressmens' statments, the White House continues to withhold comment on the matter. Sestak's opponent in the primary, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, both said this week that if Sestak's claim is true, such a job offer could constitute a federal crime. Specter specifically said it would constitute bribery, while Issa referenced three sections of the U.S. code on the matter. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has repeatedly declined to confirm or deny Sestak's allegation. He did so again on Thursday, Mar. 11, even after the two members of Congress said criminal conduct could have been involved. However, the Philadelphia Inquirer previously reported that an unnamed White House source had denied Sestak's claim. This week, Sestak reaffirmed on MSNBC's Morning Joe what he claimed in other TV interviews: That he was offered a job with the Obama administration if he would drop his challenge to Specter, a former Republican who switched parties in early 2009.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Specter to Sestak: 'Serve or quit'

2009-10-02

[The Hill] If he wants to remain in the Senate race, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) should resign "so he can cease being a burden to the taxpayers," his primary opponent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said on Thursday. The alternative, according to Specter, would be to "go back to work in the House full time" and butt out of the Senate campaign. Specter's comments represent his harshest attack on Sestak yet. In particular, the Republican-turned-Democrat has consistently criticized Sestak for skipping over 120 votes since the beginning of this year. The veteran senator claims that many of the absences have been campaign-related. "You are asking the voters for a promotion but are failing to perform the most basic duty of any Congressman, which is to vote on the floor of the House of Representatives," Specter wrote in a letter to Sestak dated today. An interesting side note: In a tweet today, Specter accuses Sestak of missing 125 votes, while the letter claims he has skipped 122. The two campaigns have often engaged each other using fiery rhetoric. Sestak has attacked Specter's votes during his time as a Republican senator. The winner of the primary is likely to face Republican front-runner and former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) A recent Quinnipiac poll shows Specter leading Sestak by a wide margin. But Toomey is running strong in a hypothetical match-up with either opponent.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Joe Sestak big winner in Netroots straw poll

2009-08-17

Progressive online activists prefer Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) over Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) by a landslide margin, according to results of a Netroots Nation straw poll released Saturday. The poll also showed significant resistance to passing a health reform plan without a public option. The online poll of 252 attendees, which took place Thursday and Friday at the annual gathering of progressive bloggers and activists, found that 48 percent supported Sestak for the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nomination, compared to just 10 percent who backed Specter. Exactly one-third said they didn't know which candidate they supported and seven percent said neither. The results reflect Sestak's popularity among bloggers and progressive online activists, and the same groups' wariness toward Specter, a five-term incumbent who switched parties and became a Democrat in April.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Clinton camp in lockdown mode over Bosnia flap

2008-03-26

The campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is seeking to play down news that the former first lady gave an incorrect account of landing in Bosnia in 1996 under sniper fire, and refused to answer additional questions about a flap that could hurt her chances of catching Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the race for the Democratic nomination. “We’ve said all we’re going to say on that,” said Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer on a Tuesday morning conference call with reporters. A video from CBS News had shown that Clinton’s version of having come under sniper fire was not correct. Her campaign chalked up the discrepancy between her account and the video as a case of Clinton misspeaking. The Obama campaign seized on the story when it was splashed across the CBS website Monday, with spokesman Tommy Vietor saying it is “part of a troubling pattern of Sen. Clinton inflating her foreign policy experience.” Top Clinton surrogates also sought to play down the story, which could prove to be harmful to the former first lady’s chances. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), who was asked about the flap on MSNBC, referred to it as a “small incident that happened 10 to 15 years ago.”

Link

Home Front: Politix

Defections now likely on Iraq bill

2007-05-23

Liberal Democrats who reluctantly have backed House leaders on the Iraq spending bill may defect due to the leadership’s decision to eliminate any timeline for withdrawal from the legislation. That could force the leadership to rely on Republican votes to pass the war-spending bill, which is expected to come to the floor as early as Thursday. “The anti-war Democrats have reached their tipping point,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a leader of the Out of Iraq caucus. “It’s going to take Republican votes to pass it.” Woolsey has voted consistently against Iraq supplemental spending bills, saying they don’t do enough to get the U.S. out of Iraq. Her observation is backed by comments by members like Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.). He was a surprise vote in favor of the original supplemental this year, but he said yesterday he cannot back the bill again without a timeline. Grijalva said: “I’ve supported it all the way to this point. I understand the work that went into it. But if the goal is accountability, I don’t think this gets us closer to that goal.” Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said he expects enough Democrats to switch that leadership vote-counters will lose the margin of victory they have enjoyed so far. “I’m on the edge,” he said. “I’m not liking this. A lot of people have bought into the notion that you have to fund the troops. Funding the troops means more troops are going to die.” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) indicated that just because he has voted for it before does not mean he will vote for it without a timeline. “Probably not,” Nadler said. “If it doesn’t have some sort of timeline, it’s going to be tough for me to vote for it.” Freshman Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who ran against the war and enthusiastically supported the first supplemental and its call for withdrawal, is also wavering. Asked whether he could support the new plan, he shook his head and said, “I don’t know.” If Democrats are looking for Republican votes, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) thinks they can find them. He says he would be surprised if the proposal cannot garner 10 to 15 GOP votes. “If the bill is without timelines, there would be a few Republicans who have bases and military retirees in their districts who feel the need to support the troops,” Jones said. [At a caucus meeting at press time, House Democratic leaders outlined their plan to get around liberal defections. The supplemental spending bill will be brought to the House floor as two amendments to the Senate bill. The first will be President Bush’s original Iraq supplemental request. It is expected to pass with the votes of many Republicans and conservative Democrats. The second, a domestic spending bill to include money for children’s health insurance, Gulf Coast hurricane relief, minimum wage and other items. They will be combined procedurally without a vote and sent to the Senate. “It’s a concession to reality,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.).] The timeline for withdrawal of troops fell to the cutting-room floor as leaders sought to fashion a bill that President Bush could sign and that could be passed by the Memorial Day break. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the House will not leave for that recess until a bill is sent to the president. Democratic Caucus briefings on the bill were delayed twice this week. A Monday night caucus meeting was canceled, and the regular Tuesday meeting ended before Iraq came up, after a long discussion on trade. The legislation is expected to include minimum-wage provisions and money for Gulf Coast hurricane relief and children’s health insurance, but it will exclude agricultural relief spending. “There will be an awful lot of things in the supplemental that members will consider very important,” Hoyer said. In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted that the final war-funding measure would incorporate the benchmarks-based provision authored by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and cosponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). Supporters of the plan to remove timelines say it takes the question of whether Democrats will “fund the troops” off the table and opens the door to an uninhibited debate on Iraq policy in upcoming bills like the regular defense appropriations bill. Moran, for example, said he intends to vote for the supplemental “under the assumption that there will be stronger language” in future bills. “This bill will get us to funding the troops,” said Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.). “We’re going to come to an accommodation on funding the troops and keep the process going. Eventually, there will be a date certain.” Lawmakers say they have to work with President Bush on this bill to keep moving towards ending the war, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said. “In the end, the president has the last say,” Ruppersberger said. “The most important thing is the endgame — getting our troops out.”

Link

Home Front: Politix

Sestak Speech to Muslim Group Creates Uproar

2007-03-20

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) has ignited a controversy after agreeing to be the keynote speaker at an April 7 banquet and fundraiser hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations Philadelphia chapter. CAIR is the largest Muslim civil rights group in the country, with 30 chapters nationwide. Jewish organizations and conservative groups have criticized CAIR for not labeling Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, and for not speaking out specifically against suicide bombings against Israelis. Sestak’s acceptance of the invitation has particularly enraged members of the Philadelphia Jewish community, who bombarded him with critical questions at a forum last week. Most of the questions during the two-hour meeting dealt with the CAIR fundraiser. The brouhaha began two weeks ago when Sestak’s outreach coordinator, Adeeba Al-Zaman, booked the congressman for an event his aides presented as a banquet. But CAIR’s Philadelphia chapter put out fliers billing the congressman as the featured speaker at a fundraiser. Al-Zaman is the former director of communications for CAIR’s Philadelphia chapter. Sestak said he will reiterate his “strong support for Israel” and criticize the terrorist groups in his speech. He added that he hasn’t seen any instance where CAIR has specifically singled out Hamas and Hezbollah for criticism. “I can’t find where it’s ever condemned Hamas and Hezbollah by name,” Sestak said. We'll be waiting to see what you say in your speech. If CAIR lets reporters in , that is. At the same time, Sestak also said CAIR was a “legitimate organization” and singled out their “good work” in fighting racial profiling. In 2006 Sestak handily defeated GOP Rep. Curt Weldon, aided in part by a pre-election Department of Justice investigation into the Republican’s lobbying ties. Damn poor trade the voters of my district made...

Link

Home Front: Politix

Murtha Stumbles, Dems Mumble

2007-02-25

WaPo, but page A05. The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment. But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week. "If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party. Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations. "I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said. Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts. The story of Murtha's star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party's deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts. Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further. Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. By the end of the recess, Murtha's once promising strategy was in tatters. Tom Andrews, a former House member and antiwar activist who helped Murtha with his Internet rollout, fumed: "The issue to me is, what is the state of the backbone of the Democratic Party? How will they respond to this counterattack? Republicans are throwing touchdown passes on this because the Democrats aren't even on the field." Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida Democrat and deputy whip, said party leaders are working on several Iraq proposals and that Murtha's may survive. Finding consensus will be difficult but not impossible, she said. "This is a multi-step process," she cautioned. "At least we're debating the topic, not blindly following the president." Megan Grote, Murtha's spokeswoman, said the congressman will not discuss Iraq policy until a news conference scheduled for the end of the week.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-8 More