For off-shore drilling to happen, three things have to happen.
1) The Executive Moratorium has to be lifted.
2) The Congressional Moratorium has to be lifted.
3) States have to allow exploration.
Archive for the ‘US Senate’ Category
As a general rule, when an elected official introduces legislation, they almost never call it something bad. If they could get away with it, I’m sure every bill would be called the “Happiness, Puppies and Children Act.” Of course, the devil is always in the thousands of pages of actionable legislation behind the frou-frou title.
Now, Democrats have gotten really good at using bill nomenclature to set up Heisman Votes. Sometimes, they even trick themselves. And here are three examples from recent history.
The balance of the United States Senate majority hung on 3,562 votes right here in Montana. For some reason - probably because national media decided to focus on the 8,805 margin of victory in Virginia which is closer to Washington, DC and easier to cover - this story hasn’t been told.
On November 7, by a margin of 3,562 votes, Montana replaced Republican Conrad Burns with Democrat Jon Tester and in doing so gave Democrats the one seat they needed to put them over the 50-50 mark and into the majority.
So when the question is posed, can Obama win in Montana? Yes, he can. Or more accurately, McCain can lose like Burns did. In the waning months of the 2006 election, I did some volunteer work for the Burns campaign that included some unpleasant phone calls. I lost track of the number of people I talked to who considered themselves conservative Republicans, were proudly voting for Rehberg but were not going to vote for Burns. Statewide, this sentiment was enough to cost Burns the election.
I hear a lot of the same comments from Montana conservatives about McCain - they will never vote for him, they’d rather not vote. This is a serious problem for McCain, just like it was for Burns. I’m not saying that voters did anything wrong here - the truth is, it was Burns’ fault that he lost these voters and he should have been more careful.
At the same time, the stubborn refusal to vote for the more conservative candidate had real consequences. 3,562 of them gave Harry Reid the Senate Majority. The consequences for the Presidency over the next four years are going to be even more profound.
The questions therefore, are whether McCain can win back support from the conservative base or, barring that, whether he can pick up enough votes from the independent center as he loses from the right.
Of course, by now everyone knows that Harry Reid was lying to Montana when he promised Jon Tester a seat on the Appropriations Committee. It was a strange offer though if you think about it, because the bread and butter of an appropriator is the earmark and Jon Tester told Montanans that he didn’t like any earmarks at all. But I digress.
Two of our favorite blogs have weighed in:
Jack has a great post up about Tester on earmarks 14 months after taking office. Go read it. Watch the video.
Tester’s vote against the moratorium on earmarks is quite a different view than he had back in 2006 when he was running for the U.S. Senate, and that is a fact.
And then Montana Headlines had this commentary to add.
So why isn’t the vigilant Montana press doing this kind of homework, and asking hard questions of Sen. Tester? Why doesn’t the Gazette article mention Tester’s constant beating of the drum against earmarks in his campaign challenge to Burns?
I particularly enjoyed the statements that MH wrote for Tester for the sake of accuracy. Go take a look.
Rack this one up to media bias. Yes, Rehberg voted for Real ID. It’s all over the papers and in every news story about Baucus and Tester. Usually the article also mentions that Renberg changed his position on the law after the state unanimously passed legislation refusing to comply.
So I find myself wondering why, in every article I’ve read about Baucus and Tester opposing Real ID, there is absolutely no mention of how Baucus voted. It seems like in an article about their opposition to a law, it would be relevant to know how they originally voted when that law was made. And I figure the reporters know it’s relevant because they mention Rehberg’s support for the law even when the story isn’t about Rehberg at all. But Baucus’ press release probably didn’t have that information in it, and as busy as it gets, it was probably too much work to determine if he ever supported Real ID. After all, its not like anyone would try to use this as a political issue.
Fear not dear readers; I did the 2 minutes of research on Google. Turns out, that like 99 of his colleagues in the Senate, including the other Senator from Montana, Max Baucus voted for Real ID. Doesn’t that seem newsworthy to you?
Remember when everyone was upset that the majority party was sacrificing good, effective policy for the benefits of their special interests? Oh yeah, that was now.
I’ve hypothesized before that Senator Jon Tester is violating Senate Ethics rules in the process of conducting a Senate Ethics Audit to determine whether or not he is violating Senate Ethics rules. That would be kind of problematic for him since the whole point of the audit is to show Montana how ethical he is. Anyway, check this out.
So the problem I have is with the nature of the service being provided Tester - or more accurately the cost of the service. As I’ve pointed out before, John Sheehy is doing the audit work for free. Trouble is those pesky ethics rules that gave Tester the nails to crucify Conrad Burns with also have something to say about certain work being done for free. They call it an in-kind contribution and it is prohibited.
Senate Rule XXXVIII (38) is a prohibition of unofficial office accounts. Sounds unrelated, except that the Senate Ethics Manual (pdf) has this to say about Interpretive Ruling 443 (from page 105).
‘‘Senate Rule 38 prohibits unofficial office accounts, that is, private supplementation of expenses incurred in connection with the operation of a Member’s office and the activities of a committee as well. Thus, private contributions of money or private, in-kind contributions of goods or services for official purposes are prohibited by Senate Rule 38.”
Of course, there are exceptions for work centered around the legislative process - the drafting, debating and enacting of laws. We don’t want to prevent a Senator from soliciting expert advice. But when it comes to the administrative aspects of running of an office - the stated goal of Tester’s audit - it’s pretty clear:
As stated in Committee Interpretative Ruling 444 interpreting Rule 38, however, neither official nor officially related expenses, goods, or services used in the operation of a Senator’s office may be provided or paid for by private parties. This rule provides a broad prohibition on the use of private resources to do the work of a Senate office.
So what’s the big deal? I mean obviously Tester is trying to do the right thing, right so why rake him over the coals with an ethics manual so darn antiquated that they say “XXXVIII” instead of “38″?
The reason that in-kind contributions are forbidden is that they establish a tit-for-tat relationship between the provider of the gift and the men and women elected to hold tremendous power on our behalf. Anyone with an elementary grasp of persuasion or sales knows that giving someone something for free puts them into a debtor situation where social norms drive them to return the favor - often times at a rate much greater than the initial gift.
The concern is that by accepting free services from Sheehy, Tester is putting himself and his staff in a situation where they may feel indebted to him. That’s the problem with “special interests” isn’t it? That individuals exercise more influence than Joe or Jane Montana. So unless you have something you can give or provide for Senator Tester, I’d be a little worried about that fact that it took less than a year for Jon to settle into the you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours culture.
I wrote before on Tester’s public relations stunt to hunt out his own impropriety. From the Gazette:
“We’re going to look and see what Judge Sheehy has to say about it, and we’ll respond from there,” Tester said. “If he finds problems, we’ll address them. If not, that’s good for us.”
Here’s my question. Since Senator Tester has promised to make the results of the audit public, won’t be an awful lot of pressure to keep any “problems” out of the report. I mean, I can’t see him publicizing a point-by-point description of his ethical lapses. That would be sort of like doing opposition research for them. For this kind of report to be helpful, Tester would have to keep the report private - at least at first - so that his auditor can be honest with potential violations. Publicize that the audit is happening and take the results seriously.
Asked if he expected criticism because of Sheehy’s past political ties, Tester said, “I really don’t. Judge Sheehy was a very fair, honest guy and a distinguished Supreme Court justice.”
Okay, but seriously, I still think Sheehy is making in-kind contributions to Tester.
Democrats had a great time with the “Do Nothing Congress” label during the 109th Congress. Not to be outdone, the new majorities of the 110th Congress have been overwhelmed with partisan bickering and oversight campaigns aimed at the Bush Administration. “Do Nothing Congress” is rearing its rhetorical head once again.
But it turns out that “Do Nothing” isn’t exactly accurate. These Congresses are doing one thing predominantly: They are using parliamentary procedure to gain a political advantage in the next election cycle. Forcing the other side to take ugly votes - at the expense of accomplishing anything - for sensationalized headlines about children or the middle class or veterans or body armor or whatever.
Well hold onto your butts because we are in for a treat this year. If you thought the the vitriol was counterproductive to the process before, just wait until the ante is raised to the American Presidency. For the first time ever, the Presidential Election will be between two sitting United States Senators.
Largely because of its volatile political environment, The United States Senate is a very difficult platform from which to run for President. Unique to the Senate is the parity of power between the majority and minority and the ability of either to make life hell for the other. Consequently, only two sitting US Senators have ever won the Presidency - Harding in 1920 and Kennedy in 1960. Eight others have lost (remember how that pesky voting record burned Kerry in 2004?).
As the Second Session of the 110th Congress plows ever-so-tentatively forward, it looks like the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House don’t expect to and won’t try to accomplish much until they have a friendly ear in the White House. The First Session - an off-election year - was disappointing for them, and this year is a much higher hurdle. The Second Session of the 110th Congress is going to be about political posturing, and with two of their own going head-to-head, the Senate is going to be a bloodbath of difficult votes. Ultimately, it is Congressional Leadership that will play the most important Role in the 2008 Election.
From the relative safety of the minority Reid and Pelosi were quite adept at this game - running circles around Frist and DeLay. The result contributed to the dramatic election of 2006. But both have proven ineffective as majority leaders and the new Republican leadership has adapted quickly. Even in the House, where the minority has virtually no standing, Boehner has stymied Pelosi at every turn. In the Senate, where the minority has a real power, a years worth of blunders by Majority Leader Reid have taken their toll.
So here’s the scenario. Two college football teams with decent records. No BCS Bowl this year, but each team has a Heisman favorite on the roster. With a National Championship out of the question, the goal of the program centers around winning that trophy. And the two teams are suiting up against each other in the final game before the Heisman ballots are cast.
Reid is a quarterback coming off a season of interceptions, fumbles and field goal attempts on drives that should have been touchdowns. Even so, he’s the quarterback and the Democrats are playing offense. Reid has structural power to determine the agenda - to call the plays and to run audibles. Reid will call his game to run right over the top of John McCain and he’ll get the ball into his nominee’s hands as often as he can.
On the other side of the ball, McConnell is fielding a technically proficient defense with a killer game plan. When they’re not intercepting the ball or forcing fumbles, they are driving the offense into long-yardage situations and forcing punts. McConnell and the Republicans have to play a reactive game, but they can sustain a filibuster and force votes on germane amendments. Used wisely - and in conjunction with the self-imposed PayGo rules that force Democrats to curb their spending addiction or support tax increases - amendments can steal the rhetorical thunder from a policy. McConnell is going to spy the Democrat nominee is while sending McCain wherever the action is to boost his stats.
2008 in the Senate won’t be about winning any games; there’s always next season for that. This year is about winning a Heisman. So now you’ll know what I’m talking about when I identify a “Heisman Vote”
Heisman Vote (n): a politically motivated vote forced upon the opposing party not intended to achieve implement of the policy. ex: The Democrats called a Heisman Vote on the SCHIP Veto Override.
Here are six reasons not to trust or support the sixth most powerful Senator. Feel free to add more, be creative about it.
6. On one hand, we lost a seat on appropriations. But the good news is our senior Senator will continue to lobby the crook Senate Majority leader for more empty promises.
5. Where is the outrage?
4. Time to look out the window.
3. Don’t worry, if you lose your job Max will employ you in one of his 8 campaign offices.
2. Good thing one member of delegation knows how to write a bill or we couldn’t go to the sun.
1. Malmstrom Runway, its a done deal…or not.
