‘Hats of the Day: 50 Congressmen
The House has voted overwhelmingly in favor of House Resolution 627, which condemns the torture and abuse of prisoners in Iraq while commending the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who serve admirably. Of the Congressmen voting on the resolution, 365 voted yes, while 19 did not vote. Below is a list of the other 50, who apparently either (1) do not object to torture, or (2) can’t bring themselves to say anything good about the military. See if you can spot any patterns.
- Abercrombie, Neil (D-HI)
- Blumenauer, Earl (D-OR)
- Brown, Sherrod (D-OH)
- Clyburn, James (D-SC)
- Conyers, John (D-MI)
- Cummings, Elijah (D-MD)
- Fattah, Chaka (D-PA)
- Frank, Barney (D-MA)
- Grijalva, Ra?-AZ)
- Gutierrez, Luis (D-IL)
- Hastings, Alcee (D-FL)
- Hinchey, Maurice (D-NY)
- Hoyer, Steny (D-MD)
- Inslee, Jay (D-WA)
- Jackson-Lee, Sheila (D-TX)
- Jones, Stephanie (D-OH)
- Kaptur, Marcy (D-OH)
- Kilpatrick, Carolyn (D-MI)
- Kucinich, Dennis (D-OH)
- Lee, Barbara (D-CA)
- Lewis, John (D-GA)
- Markey, Ed (D-MA)
- McCollum, Betty (D-MN)
- McDermott, Jim (D-WA)
- McGovern, James (D-MA)
- Meek, Kendrick (D-FL)
- Millender-McDonald, Juanita (D-CA)
- Miller, George (D-CA)
- Mollohan, Alan (D-WV)
- Oberstar, James (D-MN)
- Olver, John (D-MA)
- Owens, Major (D-NY)
- Pallone, Frank (D-NJ)
- Paul, Ron (R-TX)
- Payne, Donald (D-NJ)
- Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA)
- Rangel, Charles (D-NY)
- Ryan, Tim (D-OH)
- Sabo, Martin Olav (D-MN)
- Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL)
- Serrano, Jose D-NY)
- Stark, Fortney “Pete” (D-CA)
- Strickland, Ted (D-OH)
- Towns, Edolphus (D-NY)
- Velazquez, Nydia (D-NY)
- Waters, Maxine (D-CA)
- Watson, Diane (D-CA)
- Watt, Mel (D-NC)
- Waxman, Henry (D-CA)
- Woolsey, Lynn (D-CA)
Nope, no pattern there at all.
May 6th, 2004 at 5:10 pm
Good grief. Depressing. Wholly depressing.
But another reason to send Steny Hoyer hate mail.
May 6th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Maybe no one reminded them that May is National Military
Appreciation Month.
May 7th, 2004 at 1:05 am
or (3) you are Ron Paul and you “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution”.
May 7th, 2004 at 6:50 am
Sorry, I’m not giving Ron Paul a pass on this one. Non-binding resolutions are purely symbolic, and thus do not raise any serious constitutional objections. Even less so when the resolution pertains to the military, which the Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to regulate.
If Paul has something against non-binding resolutions generally, he’s a petty man. Even then, the right thing to do would have been to abstain, not to vote “yes” or “no.”
May 7th, 2004 at 7:56 am
Regarding Ron Paul, I’m in total agreement with you. I’ve lost a great deal
of respect for his voting “No”.
Most of the remaining ones are members of the anti-war left, including
Jackson-Lee, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, McDermott, Pelosi, Rangel, Waters, and
Waxman. Idiots all, and quite frankly no big suprise.
May 7th, 2004 at 9:48 am
Non-binding resolutions are purely symbolic
Read: they are a waste of time (and my money).
Ron Paul should have just not gone.
May 7th, 2004 at 1:41 pm
The cost of voting on a non-binding resolution is trivial, and the savings generated by Ron Paul’s no vote are nonexistent. What I see is one member of the anti-war right being every bit as pious and tin-eared as 49 members of the anti-war left. One group thinks America is too good for the world, the other thinks the world is too good for us. A pox on both of them.
May 7th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
So, you really think this non-binding, non-significant resolution has no significant costs? No prep time or staff time devoted to making the document, tallying votes, research, logistical costs, whatever? If they want to make political statements, great. But do it on their time (or while running for office). Don’t create some bogus resolution, with no meaning that tries to intimate the House is united on this issue, when it clearly is not.
May 7th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
Yes, I do think it has no significant costs, and no, I don’t think the statement itself is insignificant. Sometimes it’s appropriate to use the bully pulpit. As to the House being united, well, by and large, it is. If 365-50 isn’t an overwhelming majority, what is?
May 7th, 2004 at 3:15 pm
I agree that the D’s on the list likely voted for the wrong reasons yet think ron paul may have voted for the reasons i outlined. Overwhelming majority doesn’t mean a house united. The statement is quite insignificant. It means nothing and yet costs something. It’s one a thousand pin pricks that leads to the huge gaping hole
May 11th, 2004 at 10:58 am
“Blumenauer, Earl (D-OR)”
Figures he represents the Portland area. I’m just surprised DeFazio’s not on there too.