Thank You, Rep. Mike Doyle!

I’m going to #StandWithJohnLewis. I won’t attend the Inauguration on Friday.

— Mike Doyle (@USRepMikeDoyle) January 17, 2017

(My Congressperson!)
(We're up to 50 not attending now with three from PA.)

Congressman Mike Doyle Knows His Internet Memes!

And puts them to great use -- good on him!

Can I burn down your house? No Just the 2nd floor? No Garage? No Let's talk about what I can burn down. No YOU AREN'T COMPROMISING!
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 2, 2013

UPDATE: And Congress just went into recess because of reports of shots fired near/around the Capitol--so much for a lighthearted post...

My Coffee With Congressman Doyle

One bright, sunshine day this past weekend, I had a very nice chat with the district's representatives in Congress, Mike Doyle.  It's been a while since we chatted face to face and he's looking fitter and trimmer than I remember.  He said he's lost a couple dozen pounds and given up ice cream and taken to going on 100 mile bike rides.  If you're keeping score, I've been doing none of those things and I'm looking pretty much the same as I have been for a while (that is to say, greying, plumping and balding).

I started off our chat by asking him how well he thought Congress was doing its job.  And that's all I needed to get a full hour of thoughtful analysis.  After chuckling sadly, he started to describe the House's current legislative gridlock.  The current edition.

Early on, he pushed Paul Krugman's article from the NYTimes and one of its main points:

The sad truth is that the modern G.O.P. is lost in fantasy, unable to participate in actual governing.

It's a complicated bind that we're all in generally and that Speaker Boehner is in particularly, but it can all be simplified into this: Because of the "us versus them/if you're not with us you're against us" mentality of the powerful Tea Party caucus of the House, political compromise in that body is impossible.

And because political compromise is impossible, work on any sort of a necessary post-sequestration budget is impossible.

And because any sort work on a post-sequestration budget is impossible, we're going to continue, after October 1, into another phase of the sequester that was not supposed to happen.

According to Doyle, while the Tea Party caucus likes the effects of the sequester (as it limits any growth of the guv'ment without them having do anything for which they can be blamed), those effects will eventually hurt us all.  And that's the bind we're all in because of them.

The inability "to participate in actual governing" extends to some of the most basic functions of congressional work.  For example, Doyle says, when a bill is passed in both houses a conference committee might need to be formed to settle whatever differences there may be between each version.  At present, that's not happening either.  Not without preconditions that the Democrats in Congress would never accept.  All this for a discussion between the two houses.

All because the GOP as a whole has to placate it's Tea Party base.

Which leads to a deeper issue at hand than the "us vs them" mentality mentioned above.  From Krugman:

The sad truth is that the modern G.O.P. is lost in fantasy...

As an illustration of that point, Doyle said that the Republicans were convinced Romney was going to win in 2012. Now that it's obvious that he didn't, they're convinced Karl Rove lied to them about their chances.

[Unconnected to my chat with Doyle, but I gotta think that that last point has something to do with Groundswell.]

Part of the fantasy Krugman describes is also found in Doyle's rhetorical question regarding the House Republicans' reluctance to compromise with their colleagues from the Democratic Party:

• How do you compromise with a party run by a Kenyan-born secret-Muslim who's intent on imposing socialism on America?

The base that's placated by the Tea Party wing of the GOP (and thus the GOP itself) fervently believes teh crazie.  We've seen this before (this is from 2011):

Last August in a CNN/Opinion Research poll, when asked, "Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country? 44% of the Republicans got it wrong. 27% said he was "probably born in another country" while 14% said he was "definitely born in another country" and 3% had no opinion.

For example.

This is the base that's being placated by the GOP.  Until that ends things will get worse before they get better.  Until the base rejects the conspiracy theory it's been fed and says, "Enough!" things will get worse before they get better.  The House leadership's in a bind because if they don't appease teh crazies, they'll be replaced with a tea partier who will.  The non-crazies among the House GOP (and Doyle told me of many who don't like the TP members - they just can't admit it publicly) feel the same way.  If they disagree they risk a primary challenge from their right.

And until this changes...well, you get the picture.

As for a grade, Doyle gave the folks running the show in the House a solid F.

Is that a surprise?

"Speak Up for Jobs!" Congressional Listening Tour Comes to Pittsburgh

(Click graphic to enlarge. Click here for .PDF)
WHAT: Join Congressman Mike Doyle (Pennsylvania), Congressman John Conyers (Michigan) and Congressman Raul Grijalva (Arizona) as they come to our city to hear your concerns about jobs and the economy.

WHEN: Monday, July 18th, Community Rally & Picnic @ 5:00 PM, Congressional Listening Tour @ 6:30 PM

WHERE: Kinglsey Association, 6435 Frankstown Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15206 (map)

WHY: Our communities need JOBS! But, Congress is giving tax breaks to millionaires and oil companies. Join us and tell Congress to invest in citizens before corporations!

RSVP: Here
.

Low Power FM

Here's something you may not have noticed amid all the Ben's Engaged/Pitt Coach Sacked/Obama's Sold Out To The Russians-Again local coverage.

The President signed some locally connected legislation yesterday:

H.R. 6533, the “Local Community Radio Act of 2010,” which modifies current restrictions on low-power FM radio stations;

It was sponsored by our own Mike Doyle.

So what is it? From the Sacramento Current:

For over a decade, the Prometheus Radio Project has been fighting for historically disenfranchised and marginalized communities nationwide to expand community radio. “A town without a community radio station is like a town without a library,” said Pete Tridish of Prometheus in a press release issued in December. On December 18, history was made when the U.S. Senate finally passed the Local Community Radio Act after years of struggle. On December 29, the LCRA was presented to President Barack Obama for his signature. The legislation will expand low-power FM (LPFM) radio, a broadcasting service created by the FCC to address the shrinking diversity of voices on the radio.

“From Seattle, Oakland, and Albuquerque to Minneapolis, San Antonio, Kentucky, and Philadelphia, thousands of communities know that having access to our own slice of the dial means a tool to build our movements for justice,” said Betty Yu, coordinator of the Media Action Grassroots Network. “We have won something huge in Congress, but the fight is not over. Now we need to work at the FCC to make sure as many licenses as possible can be available in rural communities, towns and suburbs, and America’s cities.”

So now what? From here on out the FCC will be working on applications to push forward licenses for LPFM radio stations. Look for these stations to be built everywhere, reaching from city neighborhoods to outlying rural areas. These new channels of communication will empower struggling music communities, grassroots organizations, and cultural hubs across the country, profoundly impacting the way local communities sustain and utilize local resources.

I am guessing the Prometheus Radio Project has some more info.

More later -

Interested to see where this one leads.

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal Having Far Reaching Effects Including Here in Pittsburgh

Dan Onorato, Mike Doyle and Luke Ravenstahlat today's early morning press conference.
In a move which political insiders found "stunning" a joint press conference was held today in Pittsburgh by three notably Catholic elected officials: US Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

The three men issued a press release stating that, "We realize that we have no right to impose our particular religious views on the citizenry of Southwestern Pennsylvania."

It went on to add, "We're all Democrats and it's time that we lived up to our Party's platform."

At the presser, Onorato said, "I told the good folks at the Steel-City Stonewall Democrats endorsement vote just this Sunday that I was against same-sex marriage, but with each new revelation in the Church abuse scandal I came to the realization that maybe my Church didn't really have the moral authority to tell others how to live their lives. If elected to be your Governor, I will work for real equality not just some sham unfunded commission."

Mayor Ravenstahl, whose voice frequently chocked with emotion and who at times was blinking back tears, blurted out, "I've been a real douche." He went on, "That vote I made against the Bubble Zone when I was on City Council which I never explained, yeah, that was totally an anti choice vote. Myself and my colleagues here have no right to try to impose the views of our Church or ourselves on the women of our area.

Growing increasingly more philosophical during his comments, Ravenstahl added, "What are we talking about here anyway? I can't even keep my own marriage together and yet I say the gays shouldn't even be allowed to try? It's all about the love, right?"

Doyle, the last to speak, said he'd been conflicted for some time. "Yeah, I voted for the Stupak Amendment, but even then I was still trying to bring the two sides together. Personally, I'm against abortion, but I know I can't impose my own beliefs on others. And, I certainly can't hide behind my faith -- especially not now. I want to say though that there are many, many good people in the laity, but I've had a real change of heart. I'm gonna go one step further and sponsor a repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Abortion is legal in this country and there's no good reason why we should punish poor women. That would be real health care reform."

The three took questions after making their statements and when asked about his status as a resident of the infamous "C Street House" run by the shadowy group called "The Family," Doyle noted that he had moved out over a year ago. "What was I thinking living there? Talk about religious hypocrites and a lack of moral authority! They're almost on par with the leadership in the Catholic Church."

As the conference ended, the press was ushered out with a broadcast of David Bowie's "Changes."


.

"Stupak" makes it in to the Urban Dictionary

Does "stupak" mean:

"A medical condition (subset of sepsis) resulting from unsafe - unnecessarily so - back alley abortions as a result of the "Stupak Amendment" to the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill."

Or is it:

adj: imposing religious beliefs of one group on another, especially through legislation or financial pressure.

How about:

To do something ridiculous, silly, moronic, stupid, asinine, idiotic, etc.

You can vote up your favorite definition here.

Personally, I'm torn between the first two defintions, but for this post, I want to remind everyone that here in Western PA we have three very stupak Democrats:

Mike Doyle, Jason Altmire and John Murtha all voted for the Stupak Amendment.
.

Health Care Reform Bill Passes in the House -- Blue Dogs, Republicans and Spineless Dems Throw Women Under the Bus

The Stupak Amendment to the Health Care Reform bill in the House of Representatives passed with 240 yeas, 194 nays and 1 present vote.

What does that mean?

It means that women have been singled out to be the only class of people to actually lose coverage under the HCR bill.

While Rep. Bart Stupak (D, He-Man-Women-Haters-Club) claimed that the his amendment would just ensure that no federal funds would pay for abortion, that is just a BIG FAT LIE. There is already the Hyde Amendment which says no Federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman.

What the Stupak Amendment does is ensure that no insurance will cover abortions in a regular plan -- even if the woman pays for the insurance totally with her own personal funds. (Currently about 85% of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.) With the passed Stupak Amendment, an insurer who participates in the Public Option Exchange cannot cover abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman.

And, how did we get to a place where women actually will lose current coverage?

You can thank the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Apparently our Congress needed their seal of approval before they could pass HCR legislation.

How fitting that an institution which has an all male leadership has the most important voice in deciding which legal medical procedures can be covered for women. It's so peachy fucking keen. It's also swell that so many of our representatives have decided that we are all Catholic now. Perhaps the bill can also be amended to include "Magdalene laundries": virtual slave labor camps set up by the Catholic Church in Ireland for women of "low character". I'm betting Rep. Michele Bachmann would go for it.

Hell, maybe even Pittsburgh's own Rep. Mike Doyle the "point man to help strike a last-minute compromise on abortion language in the House of Representatives' health care bill" would like the laundries established here too seeing as how he lives in the "C Street" House with Stupak which is run by the ultra secretive and ultra creepy religious group know as "The Family." You know, the group who thinks that its members are destined to rule and aren't bound by conventional moral codes that the rest of us are supposed to follow (which is how they justify to themselves covering up their members' adulterous sexual affairs).

But, it's all OK. If a woman wants insurance that will cover abortion, she can apparently buy supplemental insurance -- because it makes perfect sense to buy extra insurance ahead of time to cover a pregnancy that was unplanned to begin with. Kind of like how everyone should be forced to get supplemental insurance for cancer just in case they get it some day and want to be covered. (And, speaking of cancer, Texas Republican Pete Sessions compared being a woman to being a smoker as to why it's perfectly fine for women to pay more for insurance than men. Better quit that uterus now, girls!)

As I'm writing this the HCR reform bill just passed. I can't even begin to tell you how happy I am that we have a bill which forces women to buy insurance that prohibits coverage of a legal medical procedure at the behest of men who wear dresses (and not in a good way) and can't have sex with women or men -- well, not unless they're very, very young -- and whose leader is in the midst of conducting a witch hunt against his own nuns in the US.

And, while it's true that we really have Blue Dog Dems to thank for this travesty, House Rethuglicans have their own special ways of sticking it to the lil woman. This happened this morning and wasn't even about abortion, but the HCR bill in general:

As the Democratic Women’s Caucus took to the microphone on the House floor to offer their arguments for how the bill would benefit women, House Republicans — led by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) — repeatedly talked over, screamed, and shouted objections. “I object, I object, I object, I object, I object,” Price interjected as Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) tried to hold the floor.

What a great day for the women of this country (because it's always good to know exactly where you stand -- below men).

Woo-fucking-hoo
.

ACTION ALERT: Call Your Member of Congress

From Firedoglake:

Do you have 3 minutes this morning?

I need you to call your member of Congress this morning and ask them to oppose any health care plan without a strong public option.

Call this number and ask to speak with your Representative: (202) 224-3121

Why is this so urgent?

Over the weekend, Max Baucus, the Senate "Democrat" holding up health care reform for the insurance industry, came out with his health care reform plan. Frankly, it's garbage - no public option, no big reforms.

Baucus's bill actually forces low- to middle-income American to buy "junk" insurance they can't afford to use, amounting to a giant transfer of wealth to the insurance industry.

Real health care reform must include a public option. Anything else is an insurance industry bailout.

With President Obama speaking to Congress tomorrow night, we need to make that message heard loud and clear.

Call your Representative now: (202) 224-3121

Thanks for all you do.

Take care,

Jane Hamsher

For those in Pittsburgh who are represented by Mike Doyle, call him and thank him for what he said last week:

"I will not vote for a bill that doesn't have a public option," Doyle said, drawing cheers from the crowd.

Make sure he know that we will hold him to this.
.

Rep. Doyle: ‘If Mr. Savage wants to find someone acting like a moron, he should simply look in the mirror.’

Pittsburgh's own Rep. Mike Doyle responding to wingnut radio shock jock Michael Savage's claim that autism is "A fraud, a racket. ... In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out"



Media Matters' Savage/Autism archive here.

(h/t to Think Progress)
.

WAPO Dick Cheney Articles

Here's a link to the fascinating Washington Post series on Dick Cheney that Congressman Doyle just mentioned on air.

(I was planning on linking to these this morning but lost the post.)

Great Lineup of Guests Today!

David has some great guests lined up today while he's subbing for Lynn Cullen from 9 to noon:

Pittsburgh City Councilman Bill Peduto

US Congressman Mike Doyle (D-PA 14th)

President of the Squirrel Hill chapter of the National Organization for Women Jeanne Clark, who will be addressing the issue of police promotions and who was a main force in organizing tomorrow's public hearing at 1:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers (fifth floor of the City-County Building, corner of Grant Street and Forbes Avenue)

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Columnist Tony Norman

UPDATE: Emailed from David's camera phone:

House Vote on HR 2206

From Talkingpointsmemo to their "Election Central" page:

The House of Representatives voted 280-142 in favor of funding the Iraq War without any binding benchmarks to measure progress. While the vote was roughly two-to-one in favor of passage, 140 Democrats voted No, and the bill passed on the strength of 194 Republican Yeas plus 86 Democrats, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Curiously, Congressman David Obey (D-WI) voted against the very measure he helped to negotiate, as did Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- the only member of the House leadership to vote against it. The bill goes to the Senate for expected passage tonight.

That link takes you here.

Let's take a look at the 19 members of the PA delegation. Following the practice at clerk.house.gov, Republicans are in italics and Democrats are in roman.

1. Brady (N)
2. Fattah (N)
3. English (Y)
4. Altmire (Y)
5. Peterson (Y)
6. Gerlach (Y)
7. Sestak (Y)
8. Murphy, P. (N)
9. Shuster (Y)
10. Carney (Y)
11. Kanjorski (Y)
12. Murtha (Y)
13. Schwartz (Y)
14. Doyle (N)
15. Dent (Y)
16. Pitts (Y)
17. Holden (Y)
18. Murphy, T (Y)
19. Platts (Y)

By my count all 8 Republicans voted YES. And of the 11 Democrats? 7 of them also voted YES. Only 4 of the state's 19 House members (Brady, Fattah, Patrick Murphy, and Doyle) voted NO.

The geography is interesting. Brady is from the PA-1, a district that is real close to Philadelphia. Fattah is from PA-2 a district that is also real close to Philadelphia. Patrick Murphy (the first veteran of the Iraq war to serve in Congress) is from PA-8 which is another district real closet to Philadelphia.

So that means (if I didn't blunder here) that in our area, the ONLY House member from either party to vote NO on the bill was Mike Doyle, PA-14. All the other local Dems voted with the Republicans.

Did they miss the news?

A majority of Americans continue to support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.

I suppose so.

UPDATE: I've been informed by an astute reader that Brady's and Fattah's districts are, in fact, not just "real close" to Philadelphia, they're mostly WITHIN Philadelphia. Thank you, Mr. nit-picky-always-gotta-be-right astute reader guy!

UPDATE II: In a press release out today, Congressman Mike Doyle explains his NO vote:

I share the anger and frustration of the vast majority of my constituents over the President's refusal to be held accountable for his failed plan to invade and occupy Iraq and build a stable, peaceful government in that country. Today, after four years of trying, he has failed to produce a credible plan for extracting our troops from the ongoing civil war in Iraq.

I won't give another $100 billion to this administration without enforceable benchmarks and timelines for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Congressman Doyle Explains

This bubbled up over at Talkingpointsmemo yesterday and they must've found it important because it was tagged as the day's "must read." The posting starts with this:

It would be wrong to call the House ethics committee incompetent. Because, really, it ably strives to make itself as irrelevant and impotent as possible.

And links to an article (sub. req.) at The Hill that begins like this:

The House ethics committee has declared that an earmark requested by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) to build a commuter transit center near a handful of properties he owns would not be an impermissible financial conflict because any benefit to Calvert would be shared by other similarly situated landowners.

Well, that's not exactly what they said, but more on that later. The letter to Calvert can be found here, by the way.

As much as I have the greatest respect for the Talkingpointsmemo group of websites, I think they may have missed the mark on this one as the facts tell (at the very least) a different tale.

And since, as it turns out, my own representative, Congressman Mike Doyle, is actually on the House Ethics Committee, I decided to drop him an e-mail for a chat on the matter. And though I'm just a poor wayfaring blogger, he got back in contact straightened out a few things.

First thing he said was the reporting was "far off base" and quickly added that the fact that Calvert went to the ethics committee with this earmark in the first place was due to the transparency reforms implemented by the new Democratic leadership when they took control of the House in January, 2007.

From the Ethics Committee website:

The House Rules for the 110th Congress changed the Code of Official Conduct regarding earmarks. This provision requires that a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who requests an earmark or a limited tax or tariff benefit to provide certain information regarding the request and its purpose to the committee of jurisdiction. An Advisory Memorandum providing guidance in this matter was released on March 27, 2007.

By the way, here's the "Advisory Memorandum" mentioned above.

According to Doyle, Calvert would not have had to approach the ethics committee in the 109th Congress and it would not have been as clear who would have popped an earmark like that into a budget prior to these recent Democratic reforms. It just never would have been this out in the open previously.

In fact, Doyle said, Calvert went to the committee to cover his ass about that earmark because of the transparency reforms.

Doyle clarified a few other things as well. The letter to Calvert was actually from the committee counsel, not from the ethics committee itself as the matter was never actually before the committee itself. The letter was a response to an inquiry by Calvert. He added that these sorts of inquiries are now "routine" and that there are probably 100 advisory requests pending "even as we speak."

Let's get on to specifics. TPMMucker Paul Keil writes that Calvert's properties were "in walking distance" to the proposed transit center. Well if you take a look at the letter to Calvert, you get the actual distances that Keil regards as "walking distance." There's one property a tenth of a mile away. Ok that's certainly walking distance.

But the next closest properties listed, a mini-storage facility and a multi-tenant building, are each a half-mile away. The next closest, an office/retail building is seven-tenths of a mile away. Then there's a property eight-tenths of a mile away. Then two properties each more than a mile away. That's walking distance?

Then there's the conclusions of the committee counsel itself. It goes a little beyond what Keil wrote. The conclusion is that since they could find no "anticipated or predictable" as opposed to "speculative" effect on the properties as a result of the earmark, there's no direct conflict. In other words, the effect has to be clearer than what had been presented. From the letter:

Furthermore, we recognize that Members typically own a personal residence or other types of property in their Congressional district, and that one of a Member's principal responsibilities is to promote the interests of the district, including by seeking funding for roads, utilities, and other public works projects.

And finally:

Based on the representations made to the Committee in this matter, we conclude that it is within your discretion for you to conclude that your properties do not constitute a financial interest in in the earmark supporting the Corona Transit Center. Of Primary consideration here, it is our understanding that the Corona Transit Center project will not immediately affect the use of any of your properties or provide any other direct or unique benefits to the properties.

Doyle decoded the first sentence of that paragraph. By putting it that way ("within your discretion") they were saying that while it may be technically legal, think twice about it because there may be the appearance that it's not right. And again it's that old transparency thing at play. Calvert approached the committee with details about the earmark and his properties near by. Now there's a paper trail and Doyle doubts that Calvert will go ahead with the earmark, now that everyone knows that he owns property near it.

It might be technically legal, but it just looks bad. And now everyone knows.

Congressman Mike Doyle on Pork

I had a very nice chat last night with Congressman Mike Doyle where we discussed, among other things, the Supplemental bill making its way through The House.

Yes, the same Supplemental that Congressman Murphy erroneously complains about here.

He also said he was surprised when he heard the news about Bill Peduto withdrawing from the mayoral race (He added, "I like Bill, he's a good guy. We've worked together on a number of projects.")

Anyway, he said that despite the news and the complaints from the rightwing (see the Murphy posting above), there's nothing new about attaching new spending initiatives onto Supplemental Appropriations bills. He explained that by definition supplemental appropriations are for things that you couldn't have planned for. Supplementals are for the unforseen stuff that couldn't make it (because it was "unforseen") into the routine budgetary process.

Here's what it says at the Wikipedia on the House Budget Committee:

The committee also reviews supplemental budget requests submitted by the President, which cover items which for one reason or another were not included in the original budget request, usually for emergency spending.

And on the Senate side:

The committee also reviews supplemental spending bills (covering unforseen or emergency expenses not previously budgeted).

So right or wrong, that's the way things have gone. He said that nothing novel was going on - a Supplemental was being forged to gain the most support, the most votes. But the buying of votes? Not happenning.

As of last night, while he said it was "still up in the air," he was optimistic the bill would pass. Indeed the AP is reporting this morning that the House Dems are confident it will pass. Doyle said it looks like there'd be a few Republicans voting for the bill - and if it's obvious the bill is going to pass without their votes, a few more Republicans will vote for it.

Yea, I know - that's confusing. The thing is those Republicans don't want to look like it was their votes that pushed it over the top. But if it's passed anyway, they're safe to vote for it.

Update on Iraq/Congressman Doyle

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from the good folks at Moveon.org urging me to call Congressman Mike Doyle and:

tell him that you want to bring our troops home safely this year.

Good idea - though I think I already know his position on bringing the troops home. I dropped him an e-mail a few days ago and we had a nice chat last night.

I was curious about how many calls his office had gotten recently about the war. He told me that his office in DC had received about a dozen calls in the last few days on Iraq, while the local office has received between 5-10 calls per day. Overall he estimates that he's gotten about 50 calls in the last few days on the Supplemental Funding bill now making its way through the House. He said he's not getting any grief in the calls - most are supportive as most everyone knows his position on the war (He's against it.).

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee approved by a vote of 36-28 a deadline for troop withdrawal of 9/1/08.

In our phone conversation Doyle gave me a lesson on the realities of getting this bill through the House.

The main sticking point to the passage of the bill (at least for the Democrats) is the date for troops to leave Iraq. One the one hand, the Republicans tend to agree with the President and do not want to put any restrictions on him. On the next hand, the "Blue Dog" Democrats, while they might disagree with the President on Iraq, do not want to "micro manage" the war effort. Then on yet another hand, there's the House progressives who want a withdrawal ASAP - as in yesterday. Getting a funding bill that pleases 218 House members is what's going to be tough.

The dates for pullout range from 12/07 (from the more progressive members of the House) to either 4/08 or 9/08 (depending on the Iraqi government's progress on complying with the benchmarks set up in the bill). Push the Blue Dogs too much and they bail. Don't push the date hard enough and progressives bail. It's a very tough situation that Doyle said he's not happy about.

Though he said for the Democrats, it's a battle over tactics - not of goals. Most everyone wants the same thing, the troops out of Iraq.

The Senate, though, is going to be one high hurdle. According to the AP:

In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.

So even if the Supplemental bill makes it through the House, it's going to be tough sledding in the Senate. And if it makes it through the Senate, there's the promised Presidential Veto.

He made his own position clear when he said he was against he war from day one and in terms of the date of troop withdrawal, "I'd vote for a date that says tomorrow."

Mike Doyle on Walter Reed

I've contacted a number of local members of Congress for their comments regarding the situation at Walter Reed hospital. Here's Congressman Mike Doyle's e-mailed to me earlier today:

The situation at Walter Reed is yet another glaring example of the incompetency and indifference of the Bush Administration. I have said many times that the Bush Administration is good at putting weapons into the hands of our soldiers and sending them all over the world to fight for our Country, they're no so good at taking care of them and their families when they come home and face financial and medical problems. It's mind-boggling that the officers in charge of Walter Reed knew these outrages were going on and did nothing to fix them. Then after the Washington Post broke the story, the Pentagon relieved the commander in charge and incredulously put the man who was most responsible for allowing these abuses - Lt. General Kevin Kiley - back in charge.

These outrages are the result of a Congress that has completely abdicated its oversight responsibilities for the past 6 years. The new democratic majority in Congress, although only in power for a little over two months, has committed to aggressive oversight of the Administration's treatment of our veterans and its conduct of the war in Iraq as well as many other matters. The American people voted for change last November and change they're going to get.

As a result of this outrage becoming public, the Army has finally installed a new command team at Walter Reed. Major General Eric Shoomaker, a doctor, will be the new commanding general and Brigadier General Michael Tucker has been named as deputy commanding general. General Tucker has combat experience and is highly respected as someone who cares about the troops. The Army has also added a number of caseworkers to help wounded soldiers and their families negotiate the administrative process. The Army has also dispatched teams to Army hospitals across the Country to identify problems like those at Walter Reed.

The President has appointed a bipartisan commission led by Bob Dole and Donna Shalala to look into the problems at our military hospitals and the new democratic majority in Congress has already begun a series of investigations and oversight hearings as well. This problem will be fixed.

Finally, a number of Members of Congress have called for the Army's Surgeon General, Lt. General Kevin Kiley to be fired - and I think it's just a matter of time until that happens.

Congressman Doyle is on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I've e-mailed a question about whether similar problems are found throughout the Veterans' Health System and if so what is the Veterans' Affairs Committee planning on doing about it.

I'll post whatever I learn.

UPDATE: Congressman Doyle e-mailed me back. After pointing out that Walter Reed is not a part of the VA health system (they're indeed two separate systems) he wrote:

VA for the most part does a pretty good job. The employees at PGH are very dedicated and we have a great volunteer program also. The problem at VA is more of an access problem than a quality of care one. Unless you're 100% service connected disabled or indigent, you could have a hard time getting into the VA health care system. This is due to the system being underfunded by this administration. We have been fighting every year to get increases to VA health care in the budget. There is going to be a big story in Sundays PG about this

You heard it here first.

My Interview with Congressman Mike Doyle

I was lucky enough to get 90 minutes of Congressman Mike Doyle's time this weekend. We sat at a small table in a thankfully warm coffee shop on Walnut street - I had a small decaf while he had a large coffee (with a refill, in fact. It was a long chat).

We talked about the Iraq Resolution, Speaker Pelosi's plane, and Impeachment.

The Iraq Resolution

I asked about first about H.Con.Res.63. Let's take a look at the resolution itself, to see what's in it and what isn't. Here it is in its entirety.

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.

Very simple. Part one to support the troops and part two to disapprove of the president's decision to escalate. As I said, very simple. We can guess where the the Congressman is coming from based on what he said on the House floor this week:

Madam Speaker, as someone who has opposed this misguided diversion from the War on Terror from the very beginning, I believe it's way past time for our country to take stock of where we've been, where we are, and where we're going in Iraq.

I think it's important to remember how we got here. President Bush told Congress and the American People:

That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction;

That Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States ;

That Saddam had ties to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attackers;

That we would be greeted as liberators;

That the invasion, occupation, and reconstruction would cost us nothing - and that Iraqi oil revenues would cover all the costs; and

That the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq would transform the Middle East into a region composed of peaceful democracies.

So where are we today?

We know that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. We know that Saddam posed no imminent threat to the United States . We know that Saddam had no operational relationship with al Qaeda. 80 percent of the Iraqi people want us to leave their country.

The nonbinding resolution passed the House 246-182. There were 17 Republicans who voted in favor of the resolution (in spite of what Doyle caled "feverish" work of the Republicans to keep in control of all their members) and 2 Democrats voted against. I asked the Congressman the "goldilocks" question (was the resolution too strong? too weak? just right?) and the first thing he said was that if it was the only thing the House was going to do, he'd have voted against it - it's only the first step.

While he said he feels that the public is "ahead of us on this" and called it a vote of no confidence for the president's new strategy - a bipartisan one at that.

The second step, he said, was found with Congressman John Murtha's plans for the Pentagon budget. It clearly supports the troops, Doyle said, as they won't be sent into harm's way without the proper training or equipment or rest. It'll set some rules for the Pentagon to follow before sending any more troops into battle.

The third step, as outlined by Doyle, would be to redeploy the troops in the area - keep a multinational force over there to contain the civil war. Staying there, he said, only keeps Iraq's Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from making the tough decisions on securing his own country. While we're there, Doyle said, we're his police force. What al-Maliki wants is for the US to "build him an invincible police force before we leave."

He brought up how Republicans always point out how the Democrats don't have a plan. Here's mine, he said: Contain the civil war and stabilize the region through heavy diplomacy. We can do that with about 50,000 troops in the region.

He brought up an interesting point - one that should probably be emphasized. He said there are two camps in considering Iraq's place in the war on terror. Camp one says that Iraq is definitely a huge part of the war on terror. The president and his backers hold this position. Camp two says that the war in Iraq is a diversion. Doyle places himself in this camp.

Like a lot of contentious discussions, neither side can accept the other's general position, so it's impossible to settle things.

The Pelosi Smear

When I asked about Speaker Pelosi's airplane (and the "scandal" surrounding it), Doyle began with two words "buncha crap." He went on to restate the facts that everyone but those who only get their news from the Washington Times and Brit Hume; The Sargent-at-Arms Bill Livingood (a 31 year veteran of the Secret Service and elected during the 104th Congress, by the way) is the one who made the inquiries into the travel arrangements and so on.

We all know the story, by now.

Doyle said it was kind of funny when the story first broke, but once they got to see how brutal it was, it became annoying. Doyle, though, added that they (meaning the Republicans who're trying their best to keep this "story" alive) want to talk about anything (ANYTHING!) but the war in Iraq. This is the best they can scrape together.

Impeachment

We talked abit about the "I" word. Doyle pointed out that his "legacy will never be to make Dick Cheney President." And that's the basis of his thought on impeachment.

Obviously with the word posted above the logo on this blog, we feel a little different, but that's OK.

Doyle feels that impeachment would be a diversion that would only serve to boost the president's approval ratings as his core would rally around him, taking with them, probably, a sizeable number of moderate republicans with them.

The real damage to be done is through strict oversight (and on this we, of course, agree). Once all the corruption is uncovered (for example how much taxpayer money's been wasted in Iraq) those guilty will be leaving office humiliated. Impeachment would inevitably be spun as a political circus. Oversight hearings will prove the charges.