Really, what were they thinking?

The republican controlled House of Representatives rethought their gutting of the Office of Congressional Ethics after the overnight public outcry.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].

I asked Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via social media, how she voted on the issue. As of this writing I haven’t received a response.

From Talking Points Memo:

TPM news
Your Independent Office Of Congressional Ethics Vote Checklist
ByKristin Salaky and Annie ReesPublishedJanuary 3, 2017, 1:34 PM EDT

Backlash was swift after it was revealed Monday night that incoming House Republicans voted to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the authority of the House Ethics Committee, which has a Republican chair, during a closed-door meeting.
Republicans abruptly changed course Tuesday morning after that public outcry….
….The vote on the rules change, proposed by House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), was private, so Josh asked TPM readers to call up their representative’s office and write in with what they learned about their congressperson’s vote. A few clear categories quickly emerged: the obvious “yes” or “no” vote, as well as those members who were absent. But many readers were also told that staff had no idea how their representative voted, or refused to disclose their representative’s vote, citing the privacy of the closed-door meeting.
[….]
The “yes” votes
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), from a TPM reader who contacted his office
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), from a TPM reader who contacted his office
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), from a TPM reader who contacted his office.
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), from a TPM reader who contacted his office.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) from The News-Gazette.
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), from a TPM reader who contacted his office.
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM), from a TPM reader who contacted his office.
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), from a TPM reader who contacted her office.
[….]

[emphasis added]

There aren’t too many representatives owning up to their vote. Well, to her partial credit, it appears Representative Hartzler’s (r) office didn’t duck the question.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R): absolute power (January 2, 2016)

Save the world.

Hillary Clinton [2014 file photo].

You all know what to do. Make a plan to vote on Tuesday (if you haven’t already done so). Then just do it.

“….We have a new test. You must disagree with the president who nominates you. Let me say that again because we love common sense in Missouri and this defies common sense. You must vote against a nominee for the cabinet of the duly elected President of the United States because she agrees with the duly President of the United States…..”

Senator Claire McCaskill (D), yesterday, on the floor of the United States Senate:

The transcript:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Mister President, uh, briefly, this should be, um, a happy day for America. This should be a day that is circled in the calendar as another day as the, as the President of the Senate knows that this is about the American dream. This woman is the embodiment of the American dream in action. We should be celebrating her confirmation to the most important law enforcement position in the United states of America.

So why am I not happy? I am sad. I am depressed. Because what we are gonna witness in a few minutes is base politics at its ugliest. Doesn’t get any uglier than this. Because what we are saying today, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying today, it doesn’t matter if you’re qualified. It doesn’t matter if you’re one of the most qualified nominees for Attorney General in the history of our country. That makes no difference. We have a new test. You must disagree with the president who nominates you. Let me say that again because we love common sense in Missouri and this defies common sense. You must vote against a nominee for the cabinet of the duly elected President of the United States because she agrees with the duly President of the United States.

think of the consequences of that vote. Think what that means to the future of advise and consent in this Senate if we all adopt this base politics play to the cheap seat I can’t get elected President unless I’m against Loretta Lynch. If we all adopt that in the future how is any president elected in this country going to assemble a cabinet? Because it will be incumbent on all of us to be against cabinet members who have the nerve to agree with the president who has selected them for his team.

It is beyond depressing. It’s disgusting. She is so qualified, she has worked so hard all her life. She is a prosecutor’s prosecutor. She’s prosecuted more terrorists than almost anybody on the face of the planet. And the notion that this has occurred because she agrees with the man who selected her – I think everyone needs to understand what that means for the future if all of us embrace that kind of base politics in these decisions.

It is not a happy day. It is a very sad day. I am proud of who Loretta Lynch is. I am proud that she will be Attorney General of this country. I am sad that it will be such a close vote.

Thank you, Mr. President.

That’s our Claire.

The release from Senator McCaskill’s office:

McCaskill Highlights ‘depressing…base politics’ of Colleagues Opposing President’s Attorney General Nominee Because the Nominee Agrees With the President

During Senate floor speech, Senator blasts unprecedented opposition to first Attorney General nominee who’s ever prosecuted terrorists

Thursday, April 23, 2015

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill took to the Senate floor today and called out her Republican colleagues for their unprecedented opposition to Loretta Lynch’s 166 day-long nomination for the post of U.S. Attorney General.

Lynch-who has had to wait more than twice as long as the previous seven Attorneys General combined for a confirmation vote-will be the first Attorney General to have previously prosecuted terrorists.

[….]

“We should be celebrating her confirmation to the most important law enforcement position in the United States of America,” McCaskill said. “So why am I not happy? I am sad. I am depressed. Because what we are going to witness in a few minutes is base politics at its ugliest. Doesn’t get any uglier than this. Because what we are seeing today, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying today, is it doesn’t matter if you’re qualified. It doesn’t matter if you are one of the most qualified nominees for Attorney General in the history of our country. That makes no difference. We have a new test. You must disagree with the President who nominates you…we love common sense in Missouri and this defies common sense.”

When Lynch was nominated to be the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 2000, her nomination was approved by the Republican-led Judiciary Committee and confirmed unanimously by the Republican-led Senate. In 2010, when she was re-nominated to this post, Lynch was again approved by the Judiciary Committee and confirmed unanimously by the full Senate.

Lynch’s nomination today was narrowly approved by the Senate by a vote of 56-43, and she will replace Eric Holder as Attorney General.

###

“….Think what that means to the future of advise and consent in this Senate if we all adopt this base politics play to the cheap seat I can’t get elected President unless I’m against Loretta Lynch. If we all adopt that in the future how is any president elected in this country going to assemble a cabinet….?”

Uh, should we ask Senator Roy Blunt (r)?

This morning:

Jim White ‏@JW_for_Congress

Time for a change. This congress is not working. Government should govern. 7:25 AM – 28 Feb 2015

You got that right.

Last night the U.S. House of Representatives settled on a voting on a measure to continue funding Homeland Security for one more week. You read that right. One more week.

[….]

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

[….]

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

   The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015 (Public Law 113-164; 128 Stat. 1867) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting `March 6, 2015′.

[….]

[emphasis in original

One week. They get to play this game next week, too. The vote:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 106

[….]

     H R 33      2/3 RECORDED VOTE      27-Feb-2015      9:59 PM

     QUESTION:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendment

—- AYES    357 —

Clay

Cleaver

Graves (MO)

Luetkemeyer

Smith (MO)

Wagner

—- NOES    60 —

—- NOT VOTING    15 —

Hartzler

Long

[emphasis added]

Not Voting? Why?

The stand alone repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has passed the U.S. House:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638

H R 2965      YEA-AND-NAY      15-Dec-2010      5:24 PM

QUESTION:  On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment

BILL TITLE: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010

—- YEAS    250 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

—- NAYS    175 —

Akin

Blunt

Emerson

Graves (MO)

Luetkemeyer

Skelton

Breaking News: House passes “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal

….This is “an imposition of somebody’s social agenda,” said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri. It’s an “eclipse of reason, an eclipse of common sense….”

I wonder if they think teh gay is contagious? Or just bigotry?

There’s nothing new under the sun:

“….going concerns, accustomed through many years to the present system” of segregation, “no experiments should be tried…at this critical time….”

“…The Army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success. Experiments to meet the wishes and demands…for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat…”

Social agenda? Where have we heard that before?

Senator Claire McCaskill, commenting on the Iran election in a Twitter post:

clairecmc The Iranian elections make me very grateful to be an American. Home of truly free speech and fair elections. Hope reformers don’t lose hope. about 9 hours ago from web

Blue Girl replied:

TheyGaveUsARep @clairecmc Uh huh. How do you say “Florida” in Farsi? about 8 hours ago from web in reply to clairecmc

I wish I had written that.

An individual asked me yesterday, after watching the news video of Iranians taking to the streets, “Why didn’t we do that in 2000?” I replied, “Some did.”

Miami ‘Riot’ Squad: Where Are They Now?

By Al Kamen

Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A13

As we begin the second Bush administration, let’s take a moment to reflect upon one of the most historic episodes of the 2000 battle for the White House — the now-legendary “Brooks Brothers Riot” at the Miami-Dade County polling headquarters.

This was when dozens of “local protesters,” actually mostly Republican House aides from Washington, chanted “Stop the fraud!” and “Let us in!” when the local election board tried to move the re-counting from an open conference room to a smaller space….

And they were all rewarded quite nicely.

And most of our media was too lazy, too stupid, or too complicit to expose the fakery.

In addition to not counting the votes there were other far reaching consequences:

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.

ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

[December 12, 2000]

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting…

…What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

Time has not healed the wound.