Obey Said What

"He’s one of my heroes . . ."

That quote comes from The Hill, a newspaper in Washington, and it belongs to David Obey. The article is commending Robert Byrd for serving in the United States Senate longer than anyone else, 17,327 days, that's 47.5 years - or just 10 years longer than David Obey's had his backside planted in his seat in the U.S. House.

At least Obey is consistent. He idolizes someone who's served nearly half a century in Congress and he's been quoted as saying he wants to die on the floor of the House "kicking the hell out of somebody." If he lives to be as old as Robert Byrd, 89, he will have served in the house for 59 years, that's 5 years longer than if Byrd lives to be 95 and completes the term he is running for this year.

Let's put an end to a dream of 6 decades in the United States House.

King Dave

The Capital Times tries to defend Governor Doyle by reminding us of the Catholic church's challenge to Dave Obey on the pro-life issue. Here's an excerpt:

Two years ago, Bishop Raymond Burke of La Crosse went after U.S. Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wausau, for failing to tailor his congressional voting record to match the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Obey shot back, "Bishop Burke has a right to instruct me on matters of faith and morals in my private life and like any other citizen to try by persuasion, not dictation, to affect my vote on any public matter. But when he attempts to use his ecclesiastical position to dictate to American public officials how the power of law should be brought to bear against Americans who do not necessarily share our religious beliefs, on abortion or any other public issue, he crosses the line into unacceptable territory."

Obey added, with his usual bluntness: "The U.S. Constitution, which I have taken a sacred oath to defend, is designed to protect American citizens from just such authoritarian demands."

The following November, the congressman was re-elected with 86 percent of the vote, the highest level of support for any congressional candidate in the state.

First things first, Obey got 86% of the vote because no Republican ran against him, not because he's that popular.

Second, if Bishop Burke has the authority to instruct Obey on religious matters, than what's the problem with asking him to stand up for a central teaching of the church?

So, allow us to rewrite Obey's quote to state what he really meant.

"Bishop Burke has no right to call me out publicly for failing year after year to act like a Catholic on matters of life. When he attempts to use his ecclesiastical position to embarass me like this, I must remind him how the power of law can be brought to bear against Americans who do not necessarily share my beliefs, on abortion or any other public issue, and show him what happens to people who cross the line into what I believe to be unacceptable territory."

You see Dave Obey believes he dare not be challenged in any public way. He will shout you down and belittle you if you disagree with his position on an issue and he will use his holier than thou way to make it sound like you're an idiot and a threat to the American way of life.

Where's Dave(o)?

According to GOP-spot, Congressman Obey skipped the Wausau Memorial Day parade.

This is interesting not because we expect him to show up at community events unless he's guaranteed a chance to flap his gums with the press, but this was in his supposed hometown (he does own a small condo in Wausau anyway). Moreover, his staff went out of the way Friday to say Obey was "on a plane flying back to Wisconsin" during the House office building shutdown.

If he was flying back home, where was he? We can't find evidence from any newspaper that he was anywhere in Wisconsin this weekend for Memorial Day observations.

I'd say check in with the Aspen Institute to see if they've flown him off to another exotic location like they did in February.

Obey and His Drive for $4 Gas

Yesterday, Dave Obey voted against increased domestic oil exploration, again. The House of Representatives passed (again) legislation to allow exploration on the Northern Slope of Alaska. You've probably heard about ANWR in the past. Congress passed this legislation 10 years ago and President Clinton vetoed it. Had he signed it into law, ANWR would be producing at least 1 million barrels of oil a day.

The Democrats trotted out the same old arguments that pristine land would be harmed if we allowed drilling. Republicans pointed out that the pristine land they referred to was 1/10th of one percent of the total land in ANWR and that barren tundra is hardly comparable to the Grand Canyon.

It's ridiculous to think that we can't explore for oil to meet our energy needs. Dave Obey continues to vote against it.

This simply proves once again that Dave Obey cares more about appeasing liberal environmental special interest groups than he does about the price we pay at the pump. When you fill up and are disgusted about how much your paying, thank your Congressman.

Obey Said What?

Dave Obey was quoted in this Forbes story on spending in Washington.

"The number of earmarks has gotten grotesquely out of hand," said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee and an avid practitioner of getting earmarks. He said if the fall elections put Democrats in control of the House, requests for such projects will face more scrutiny.

We have a no profanity policy here at Obey Out, so let's just call that bull manure.

It's almost as laughable as the line from the House Minority Leader from San Francisco said if she becomes the Speaker of the House in a Democrat takeover that she would make bi-partisanship a priority. We could hear the people in the room in Washington, DC call "bull manure" all the way back here in Wisconsin.

Democrats spend other people's money with no regard for fiscal responsibility and Democrats complain about Republicans - that's what they're good at. And for 40 years while Democrats ruled Congress they gave Republicans no rights.

Another day, another hypocritical line from Dave Obey.

Do-Nothing Dave

In the spirit of our last post, we thought we'd check in on his welfare for politicians bill, better known as (unconstitutional) public financing of elections. Guess how many of the 435 Members of the United States House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of this legislation? Drumroll please . . . . 8. Yes 8, that's 2% of the House agrees with Obey. And you know how many have raised their hands and said "sign me up Dave" since he introduced the bill on February 1st . . . 1 (yes O-N-E, one).

That's what Obey's legislative record is like. He offers little in the way of real help to his constituents and then blames Republicans for it.

Obey Record

Yestereday, Dave Obey voted against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. The bill passed 361-37. Just another example of how out of the mainstream Dave Obey is.

Postal Patron Mailing

How many of you received the postal patron mailing from Dave Obey? Obey invites us to discuss Medicare Part D next week.

First of all, why has Dave Obey waited to have a set of formal discussions with his constituents on the new prescription drug plan over two weeks after the deadline passed to sign up? Shouldn't he have been helping seniors sign up for it before the deadline.

Here's why. It's Obey's M.O. He wants to spend most of the meetings blasting Republicans. The more seniors now facing a penalty for failing to sign up, the more seniors he can rile up with his rhetoric. It's a sad lack of representation for purely partisan political gain, but it's what we've come to expect after 37 years.

We challenge each of you to go to the meeting and ask Obey where he was hiding before the Medicare prescription drug sign up deadline!! We bet you'll be thrown out, but get your name in the paper. Get reporters to talk to you and tell them why you don't support Dave Obey.

Caught on Tape

According to a bloomberg story:

Federal investigators said they videotaped Jefferson on July 30, 2005, accepting the cash in a leather briefcase from the witness and putting it in his 1990 Lincoln Towncar following a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Arlington, Virginia.

All but $10,000 of the money was found in a freezer when the FBI searched Jefferson's Washington-area home on Aug. 3, 2005, a search that previously was disclosed. The money was stuffed in food containers and wrapped in aluminum foil, according to the affidavit. Some of the money, $4,800, was given to a legislative assistant in Jefferson's office as a loan to address her financial difficulties, the FBI said.

In Jackson's plea agreement, he said he and Jefferson had an agreement that called for Jackson's company to make monthly payments of $7,500 and give the lawmaker stock options and a percentage of gross sales, the court papers said. Jackson's company developed technology designed to transmit data, audio and video communications over copper wire.

Still waiting for Obey to call for Jefferson's resignation . . . waiting . . . waiting . . .

GOP Convention in Full Swing

If you haven't checked it out yet, here's the GOP Convention blog:

http://blogs.wispolitics.com/2006GOP/index.html

When will we hold him accountable?

Are we waiting till we're paying $4.99 a gallon for gas to hold Dave Obey accountable for his abysmal record on domestic supply of energy? Obey votes against oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf. (Roll Call 170)

David Obey and an Uber Liberal Temper Tantrum

From the folks at www.townhall.com, they offer this:

When uber liberal David Obey is throwing a temper tantrum, something must have gone right.

Isn't it nice to know our Congressman is known for being liberal and throwing temper tantrums.

Convention

Obey Out has learned that both Nick Reid and Jeff Tyberg will attend this weekend's Republican Convention.

Reid's campaign is hosting a hospitality suite from 7-9pm on Saturday evening in the Hickory Room.

If Tyberg has a similar reception, please post in the comments here and we will then update this post with the particulars.

We hope the party activists will use this as an opportunity to check out both candidates and their campaigns. Kick the tires and check the fluids. Take inventory of what these guys are doing. Huddle, and politely ask one of them to step aside for the good of the team.

Please Get a Grasp on Reality

This article is from the Capital Times. It congratulates Dave Obey on intending to die while kicking the hell out of somebody on the House floor. It's a bunch of garbage punctuated by this statement:

"His grasp of details and sense of what's best for the people are unmatched in the House. He also happens to be the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, a position of power and influence that benefits everyone in this state. If the Democratic Party had a few more Dave Obeys, America wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now."

Let's remember Dave Obey had such a firm grasp on reality that he, in one week, tried to ammend the federal budget with a $14.2 billion spending increase, he voted against extending the tax relief helping small businesses (his voting record is 92% against small businesses by the way), middle class families hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax (a ridiculous tax liberals like Obey put in place a long time ago), and that helped the lowest income workers by continuing the 10% tax bracket (saving many $300 a year). He also continues to oppose increasing domestic oil supply and refining. He voted to allow taxpayer funding of abortions on military hospitals overseas. He criticized the outgoing CIA director while failing to mention he has repeatedly voted to cut funds ($500 million the year of the first World Trade Center bombing, 1993) from that critical agency.

The fact is, if we had just 15 more Dave Obeys in the House of Representatives instead of Republicans right now, all these stupid votes he took would have become the law of the land. Yep, more spending (a heck of a lot more than $14.2 billion), higher taxes, higher gas prices, and taxpayer funded abortions.

As for Obey's position of power and influence benefitting everyone in this state, then why does Wisconsin rank so low in the amount of federal dollars coming back here? Answer - that's not Obey's goal for his position on the Appropriations Committee. He is there to do the bidding and social engineering of the liberal special interests in the Democrat party. He isn't working hard to bring federal dollars home. That's why he doesn't support earmark reform which would require him to put his name by his earmarks. Then he will have to choose between doing the liberal special interest bidding and looking bad at home for not doing more OR getting money for home and losing support of his liberal allies in Washington (who by the way funded 92% of his campaign contributions last quarter).

We say, let's try one less Dave Obey not more.

Obey's Do-Nothing Idea - "Welfare for Politicians"

The following column by Andrew Ferguson as found on bloomberg.com falls into the category of "we couldn't have said it better ourselves." It points out that Obey's proposal to get all private money out of politics is either disingenious or a typical liberal response to the problem - just spend more tax dollars. The first option makes it simply a partisan political ploy, the second is unconstitutional "welfare for politicians."

Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford must have been too busy. Or so I assumed, thumbing through the promotional literature from Americans for Campaign Reform, a new group that advocates government funding of all federal elections to the House, the Senate and the presidency.

The group's very name is a kind of prose poem of high- mindedness -- American, reformist, small ``d'' democratic. In the normal course of things such organizations automatically sign up Carter and Ford to sit on their honorary board as ``bipartisan co-chairs.''

For all I know, there's a toll-free telephone number you can call to get the ex-presidents' endorsement for the cause of the hour. (``If you're forming a commission to streamline the congressional budget process, press one. If you're going to restore a tone of civility to our national conversation, please press two ....'')

Yet instead of getting a presidential-level sanction, the ACR had to descend to the merely senatorial.

The group boasts four ``bipartisan honorary co-chairs,'' all retired senators: Democrats Bob Kerrey and Bill Bradley, plus Republicans Warren Rudman, best known as sponsor and godfather of David Souter's nomination to the Supreme Court, and Alan Simpson, self-identified as ``an outspoken advocate of abortion rights, gay rights and feminist issues.''
Perfectly Bipartisan

The honorary board thus makes for a perfect quartet of modern bipartisanship: two liberal Democrats balanced by two liberal Republicans.
And the idea that has brought them together is, appropriately enough, simple, idealistic and not very good.

The group calls public funding of campaigns ``the most important long-term public policy issue our nation faces.'' Replacing private campaign finance with government money, say the senators, will act as a kind of universal solvent of political corruption.

Suddenly our leaders will ``be elected on their ability and character'' and will ``be accountable to the voters.'' Those voters, meanwhile, ``will have confidence in their leaders'' and ``be energized to participate in the political process.''

And it will come cheap, at least by federal-government standards. An independent commission would determine the amount of money required to mount a campaign in each district and each state.

Qualified candidates -- those who receive a predetermined number of signatures or small contributions -- would then be financed through either a block grant or by matching funds. In a bow to the Constitution, ACR acknowledges that candidates won't be required to participate.

Those who prefer to raise private funds have the right to reject government money.

At current rates, the group reckons, only $1.8 billion per year, or $6 per citizen, will pay for all those federal elections and clean up U.S. politics.

You can quibble with the numbers. According to Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, right now about $4 billion is spent on federal elections each election cycle, meaning the ACR funding might be a bit skimpy.

But more importantly, you can quibble with the reasoning -- as we should with any reform whose effects are intended to be so comprehensive.

``Public funding doesn't really get at the problems that most people identify as corrupting,'' Smith says.

``Earmarks'' in appropriation bills have received universal condemnation recently, and of course ACR promises its reform will somehow eliminate them. Yet the most famous and wasteful of earmarks -- Alaska's ``bridge to nowhere'' among them -- have little connection to how campaign money is raised.

Among campaign finance reformers it's an article of faith that ``independent expenditures'' -- the advertising associated with so-called 527 groups -- corrupt elections. Wealthy individuals or groups, working independent of a candidate's campaign, can support one candidate over another who lacks wealthy supporters. This problem of unequal influence won't be resolved by public financing.

Nor would it change the style of campaigning itself -- spurious or negative ads, an overemphasis on the trivial and cosmetic -- which is alleged to alienate average voters.

In fact, public financing might even discourage innovators and mavericks by reinforcing the party establishment. The great insurgent movements of recent times -- Eugene McCarthy's in 1968, Ronald Reagan's in 1976 -- relied on unrestricted access to rich donors who could provide large amounts of cash quickly. You can see why skeptics have called public funding of campaigns ``welfare for politicians.''

``We pretend there's no downside to these reforms,'' says Smith. ``But there are effects that we can't foresee. And the response is always to place more restrictions on top of the restrictions.''

The argument may be moot in any case. The one serious legislative proposal for public financing, introduced by Democrats David Obey and Barney Frank, has languished in the House since its introduction in January. And after endorsing public financing in a TV appearance earlier this month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi backed off, saying this was only her ``personal opinion.''

Most likely, congressional Democrats know that if they do regain the majority any time soon, the Republican fundraising advantage will quickly vanish -- and so will the attractions of public funding.

Still, ACR is undeterred. ``The way to get legislation is to get the people worked up,'' said Simpson at a press conference last week. ``And that's what we're going to do.''

Ford and Carter may yet be called upon to serve this ``bipartisan'' cause after all.

Questions

Why is it that Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is able to set up non-profit organizations to direct millions in federal appropriations to?

Why is it that Dave Obey opposes private campaign contributions in the political process but did not call for an end to the practice of setting up these non-profits?

Why is it that Obey and Mollohan both opposed the lobbying reform bill when it came to a vote?

Didn't Dave Obey place Mollohan in his positions as lead Democrat on different appropriations subcommittees?

Aren't Dave Obey and all the Democrats in Washington engaged in a culture of hypocrisy?

Shouldn't we elect someone new to represent us in the 7th District of Wisconsin?

Obey's Friends in Washington

From today's Washington Post, the hits just keep on coming for the Democrats. They've been quite quick to jump on Republican Members of Congress with ethical problems, but it's their own lead Democrat on the House Ethics panel who may be a poster child for unethical behavior. Rep. Alan Mollohan apparently set up a network of non-profits headed by close associates as well as shady real estate dealings with those same individuals. In about 4 years, his net worth soared by over 1000%. Quotes from the article:

Mollohan used his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to secure more than $150 million for five nonprofit groups. One of the groups is headed by a former aide with whom Mollohan bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C.

. . .

As early as today, the 12-term congressman will admit that he misstated some transactions in his congressional filings, according to Mollohan staffers.

Let's remember, Mollohan was the lead Democrat (basically co-Chairman) of the bi-partisan ethics committee. He is going to admit to "misstating" transactions on his financial disclosure statements. Those financial disclosure statements are required and reviewed by the same ethics committee . . . OOPS! How is it exactly that the lead Democrat on the ethics committee can't get his financial disclosures right? Smell fishy to anyone else but us?

He was also blocking that committee from organizing. He said he was doing so because Republicans wouldn't fairly investigate potential wrongdoing. Sounds to us like maybe he was afraid of being investigated himself . . .

I wonder if Dave Obey has called for his resignation yet like he has for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's?

Obey Keeps Talking - Which Side of His Mouth Is It Today?

According to this AP story:

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said Goss' resignation was good news. "His management style has been wrecking the country's most important intelligence agency," Obey said. "I hope that whoever is selected to take his place will rebuild agency morale and competence."

Let's review, Dave Obey, who voted to cut funding for the CIA many times over, including trying to cut $500 million in one shot shortly after the first World Trade Center bombing, thinks outgoing CIA Director Goss was wrecking the agency. Imagine what shape it would have been in if Obey had his way. Obey's role in the Democrats culture of hypocrisy rolls on.

Obey to Wisconsin - "I want to raise your taxes."

This week has been an excellent cross-section of Dave Obey's career . . . he voted for bad energy policy, he voted for taxpayer funded abortions and he's tried to tax us more and spend more. Oh, and let's not forget he said he'd like to die "kicking the hell out of someone in the well of the House."

We forgot to mention this vote on Wednesday. Dave Obey voted against the tax relief measure that extended the 10% tax bracket (otherwise everyone paying in this bracket would see the rate jump back to 15%) as well as relief for the middle class and small business owners from the alternative minimum tax.

Please Stop

Yesterday, 7th District Republican Candidate Nick Reid had former Attorney General Ed Meese in Superior and Wausau to campaign for him. According to the Wausau Daily Herald story, Dave Obey was too busy at the Appropriations Committee to comment.

Let's recap what Dave Obey was doing to us at the Appropriations Committee. First, as we pointed out in the previous post, Obey offered an amendment to take more money out of the economy so he could spend $14.2 billion more of our money this year.

That's not all he was up to.

Obey also voted against an amendment that would have lifted the moratorium on exploring the Outer Continental Shelf for oil. Another example of how Dave Obey wants to do nothing to help with our energy needs. As gas prices head toward $4 a gallon, remember who hasn't been there for you.

Here's our request: next time Dave, in order to participate in less stupid votes and amendments that hurt the economy and our wallets, please take time to comment. Thank you.

Tax and Spend Dave

As reported in Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, "Tax and Spend Dave" offered an amendment to raise spending by $14.2 billion, and pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. That's 14 followed by 9 zeroes (000,000,000). If you made $1 million a year for 14,200 years, you'd have $14.2 billion. Bottom line, it's a lot of money.

Back to his spending and tax increase proposals. It's easy to pick on people who make money. We at Obey Out certainly would not see our taxes go up if Obey's tax plan went through (we wish we had the money to worry about it). However, we believe it's bad policy to raise taxes specifically to pay for more federal spending.

Here's why: We have a budget deficit. The best way to address a budget deficit is by holding spending in check while spurring economic growth. Congress passed tax relief in 2001 and 2003 and now the economy is humming along, with 4.8% GDP growth in the first quarter of this year. Last year revenues to the federal government went up by more than 10%. This year, revenues to the federal government are projected to go up by more than 12%. If politicians can resist their spending urge and hold the growth in spending to 4-5% as they have the last couple of years, we can balance the budget again within 3-5 years. Ladies and gentleman, we don't have a problem with the amount of money we're sending to Washington, DC - WASHINGTON DC HAS A PROBLEM WITH SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY. People like Dave Obey are ADDICTED to spending your money. This amendment he offered proves it.

We end with this excerpt from the article, "Obey suggested that the vote was a chance for Democrats to demonstrate that their values differ from those of the Republicans." Yes Dave, Democrats in Washington are for taxing more so they can spend more, Republicans agree with the people of the 7th District of Wisconsin - people are taxed enough already.

Obey Claims He's Pro-Life, Right?

Yesterday on the House floor, Dave Obey voted for an amendment to allow taxpayer funded abortions on military installations overseas. Yes, he voted for taxpayer funded abortions in our military. We don't know where you stand on the life issue, but we know Dave Obey claims to be pro-life. He's sure not voting that way (Roll Call Vote #136, May 10, 2006). That's ok, it's just another in the long line of times when Dave Obey says one thing back home and votes another way in Washington.

Do you have $90,000 in your freezer?

No, no, we aren't talking about anything Dave Obey's done . . . we are talking about the new definition of "cold, hard, cash."

Rep. William Jefferson (a Democrat) was found to have $90,000 stashed in his freezer. Not only was this cold, hard, cash found but a former aide and a businessman have plead guilty in arranging bribes for Mr. Jefferson.

While this isn't an attack on Dave Obey per se, we do wonder why he isn't "kicking the hell out of" Jefferson - on two fronts. First, he should be kicking the heck out of him because Jefferson, and his pals, Alan Mollohan (lead Democrat on the ethics committee who has allegedly steered millions of dollars to business associates), Cynthia McKinney (Democrat who allegedly punched a Capitol Police Officer) and Patrick Kennedy (Democrat who nearly ran down a Capitol Police Officer with his car) are knocking Republicans off the front page of the scandals in Washington. These four have taken the wind out of the sails of the Democrats who say the Republicans are engaged in systematic corruption in Washington. What we are learning though, is that it's not Republicans or Democrats that are the problem, it is a handful of each who have taken themselves so seriously that they believe they are above the law. We see no evidence that Obey believes he is above the law, though we're quite certain he believes himself far superior to the average voter in Wisconsin's 7th District.

Second, if Obey were such a big reformer in Washington, why isn't he publicly decrying these actions by his Democrat colleagues? If Obey truly believes, as he's said, that private money is the evil of campaigns, he should be on his soapbox, calling out Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Mollohan to come clean. Instead, he will continue to kick the heck out of Republicans, blaming them like he always does for all that is wrong in America. He will simply continue to play political hatchet man.

Obey Said What

This quote came to us from a friend in Washington, DC - as quoted in today's Congress Daily.

"I don't intend to retire. I intend to die in the well of the House kicking the hell out of somebody." -- House Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., commenting today on his future plans at a news conference.

So, if the average lifespan for a man is somewhere around 78, we can count on 5 more terms of this guy, yes nearly 50 years in office unless we vote him out. Is that what we want, or do we want to stand up and do something about Obey and his attitude? Do we really send our Representative to Washington to "kick the hell" out of people, or do we want them to work for us and the things that are right for our future? We've often commented that Obey is basically there to be a partisan hatchet man full of negative attacks and legislation that is merely offered for political posturing (see Obey's so-called reform bill) rather than actually wanting to get things done. It's nice when someone just goes right out and admits it.

Raise Your Glass - Get a Deal?

We know, we know . . . let the wine age already.

But, let's recap: On October 31st, Obey made an impassioned speech on the House floor about a back room middle of the night deal he thought he'd sealed with a sacred toast of Merlot. Then, on November 1st, Obey reminded Members of Congress and all of America watching on C-SPAN that he had toasted the deal with Merlot.

OK, maybe those comments were made in the heat of the moment on the floor. Obey was upset that the Merlot toast was no longer the deal sealer he thought it was.

Surely, he would let it go and get back to work.

Then on December 8, 2000, according to the Congressional Record, page 12051, Obey, still bitter about the de-valuing of the Merlot toast, reminded the House of Representatives:

I am starting at the conference agreement that we reached agreement on and shook hands on and toasted with Merlot

If toasting with Merlot is an accepted practice for cutting a middle of the night deal, then Obey is definitely out of touch with us. Talking about it, repeatedly, on the House floor, shows that Obey doesn't believe we'll hold him accountable for just how out of touch he is.

Former Attorney General to Campaign for Reid

From Nick Reid's website, Reid announced that former Attorney General Ed Meese will campaign for him in Superior and Wausau next Wednesday, May 10th.

Obey Loves a Good Merlot

Yesterday we posted about Obey's "Merlot" comments on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I think any common person would say that common sense dictates bragging about a back room deal cut in the dark of night, sealed with a glass of wine, isn't the smartest thing to talk about on the record.

So, what do you think Obey did the next day, after sleeping on it? You guessed it, he said it again. According to the Congressional Record, November 1, 2000 (p.11718) found here, Dave Obey said,

As I said last night, it was even sealed with toasts of Merlot.

What did Obey hope to accomplish by making this speech (oops, these speeches)? We believe it gives a window into who he is. Dave Obey is caught up in being a member of Congress. He believes he can say and do whatever he wants with no thought of being voted out by his constituents. Why else would you brag about sealing a deal with "toasts of Merlot" as the most "sacred" thing? What happened to a handshake and your word?

We Could Have Saved this for Friday . . . But We Just Couldn't Wait

A little humorous waste of time from our good Representative Obey - apparently, he co-sponsored H.CON.RES.399: Recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the victory of United States winemakers at the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting.

So, on the same day he voted against a bill that would have expanded our domestic capacity to refine gasoline, he took some time to give a shout out to our "famous" 1976 Wine Tasting win.

As it turns out, Obey is a big fan of wine. In fact, wine is apparently a key ingedient in how Obey does business in Washington. Before you start jumping up and down and say we're making unfounded accusations, here is a link to Congressional Record page 11669, October 31, 2000.

Obey took to the House floor and said,

. . . Because that agreement was understood, we had an agreement to the entire bill! It was even sealed with toasts of Merlot at 1:30 in the morning. And I do not know of anything more ``sacred'' in conference than a toast of Merlot .

Talk about the epitome of the middle of the night, smoke-filled, back room deal. Obey was actually on the floor of the United States House of Representatives talking about cutting a deal over a glass of wine at 1:30am.

We'd comment further on how out of touch with the average person in Wisconsin this is, but we think it speaks for itself.

Can We Agree to Agree?

Our neighbors in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District have agreed to abide by the endorsement of the Republican Party in determining the nominee for Congress.

Here's the story courtesy Minnesota Public Radio.

Let's try it in Wisconsin 7. What say you Nick Reid and Jeff Tyberg?

Obey Opposes Lobbying Reform

Obey Votes No on Lobbying Reform -

The legislation would clamp down on private travel, would require members to stand by their appropriations funding earmarks, would regulate liberal 527s, would increase lobbyist disclosure requirements.

What is there to be opposed to? Oh yeah, it could stop Obey's all-expenses paid vacations, could stop the ability of liberal 527s to help in Wisconsin elections, would require Obey to explain why he did or didn't get funding for his district. Basically, this bill would be a pain for Obey and he would rather campaign on this issue in the fall than actually address the problem.

The culture of hypocrisy lives on with Obey and with his Democrat colleagues. We realize we're among the few who actually watches C-SPAN, but if you missed it, the Democrats were running to the House floor to criticize convicted former Republican Rep. Cunningham for taking bribes while at the same time a businessman was pleading guilty to bribing Democrat Rep. William Jefferson.

Check it out

We offer two other blog posts from today . . .

A new blog asks if we can win:
http://gop-spot.blogspot.com/2006/05/is-there-any-chance.html

And Go Nick Go quickly catches Obey's vote against a bill that would expand our gasoline refining capacity by streamlining the approval process. Looking forward to Obey's explanation of that one.

Ouch

A friend of ours in Washington, DC just sent the story below to us . . . the story broke while Democrats are accusing Republicans on the floor of the U.S. House (yes, we are C-Span junkies) of being the party of corruption. Seems one of their own took bribes . . . and was caught . . . under our current rules and laws. Fact is, the problem aren't the rules, it's the character of the people we send to Washington.

Dave Obey will probably vote against a lobbying reform bill today. This legislation would increase transparency on lobbying activities, require members of Congress to stand by their earmarks, require a system to approve privately-funded travel by members of Congress, and would require people like William Jefferson to lose his Congressional pension if convicted of being bribed.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/13145-1.html

Businessman Pleads Guilty to Giving Jefferson $400K in Bribes

A Kentucky businessman pleaded guilty today to paying more than $400,000 in bribes to Rep. William Jefferson and his family for allegedly receiving the Louisiana Democrat’s help in obtaining contracts from the U.S. Army and African telecommunications firms.

Vernon l. Jackson, chairman and CEO of iGate Inc., of Louisville, Ky., admitted in a plea deal with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Alexandria, Va., that he had begun paying bribes in January 2001 to a company owned by Jefferson’s wife and children.

According to the plea deal, Jackson paid the company more than $367,000 between February 2001 and September 2004, with the vast majority of those funds being routed to Jefferson’s family in 2004.

Jackson also picked up in excess of $87,000 in travel costs for Jefferson and others, with some of that money going directly to Jefferson.

A former Jefferson aide, Brett Pfeffer, pleaded guilty in January to conspiracy to commit bribery and aiding and abetting the solicitation of bribes by a Member of Congress.

Jefferson has publicly denied any wrongdoing.

Tell Us

We've read recently over on GOP3 some comments about the future of the Republican Primary here in the Seventh District. There are opinions about the chances of winning the race and there is an exchange as to whether we will see a contested primary or if the field will be cleared.

We prefer a clear primary, but we realize our opinion is just that - our opinion. However, we would like to hear what everyone else out there thinks.

So, this is our invitation to comment away. Do you think we should clear the primary? If so, who should that candidate be? Who has the best chance of winning in November and why?

More on Obey's Intelligence (Vote)

Remember last week when we just couldn't explain why Dave Obey would vote against our intelligence community. Well, we wanted to share this is nothing new.

Not six months AFTER the first World Trade Center bombing, Dave Obey voted to cut intelligence funding for 1994 by $500 million. (Vote 393, 8/4/93)

This qualifies as a pattern of neglect for our ability to protect ourselves with the most valuable commodity in the war on terror - information. And, it explains a lot about Dave Obey's views on protecting us in the future.

We Hear

One of our regular readers ran into Nick Reid at a brat fry last weekend. He tells us that he asked Reid why there wasn't more coverage of the Robinson endorsement. Reid apparently told our reader that the Associated Press said this wasn't news.

Allow us to provide our interpretation of the Associated Press' answer: "Yes, Mr. Reid, I realize this is probably a story, but Congressman Obey has called and yelled at me so many times for stories he didn't like and my ears are still ringing from the last time. I just don't want to risk it again."

Why is the mainstream media so afraid of Obey? Why else are they so slow to write a critical story about him? Better yet, why won't they write a positive story about any candidate running aginst him?