Hodes Takes on the Fed??

First off, I want to apologise for ignoring the blog for so long. I've been away for some time without the time or ongoing access necessary to blog effectivly. That being said, I had almost thought it a lost cause....but I can't imagine why Paul Hodes think's it appopriate to take on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, whose worked miracles avoiding a recession during a major decline in the Housing market....and I felt the need to comment.

“Patience is wearing thin,” says Rep. Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, president of the freshman House Democrats and a member of Frank’s committee. Frank’s “lack of patience I think is indicative of the frustration that members are feeling with the Fed.”


Link: http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/new_singleEdit.asp?individual_SQL=6%2F26%2F2007%4014938_Public_.htm

Who's up for a Hodes Race?

With Jeb Bradley hot on Carol Shea-Porter's heels in the first district, it begs the question, who is going to step up and hold Paul Hodes "feet to the fire?"

Doug over at GK has a great YouTube up of Jeb speaking in Belknap, but the silence in the 2nd District has been deafening. Who among our many capable public servants is willing to risk their position in a principaled attack on Paul Hodes, who, though he may appear moderate, has made exactly the same dangerous voting decisions as Carol Shea...who's it going to be?

Lets hope someone with a quality record, like Bob Odell over in Lempster, will be willing to come out and take a chance. He's got the record, the ability, and background...does he have the conviction?

Hodes Ignoring His Constituents?

A friend forwarded a link along today by a red state blogger who'd recent gotten a response to a letter they'd written Rep. Hodes. In combination with the comments, particularily one purportedly written by a former Bass intern, I can't help but notice the divergent attitudes of these two Representatives.

During his campaign, Rep. Hodes accused Charlie Bass of being "a backbencher," seemingly saying that he was an ineffective Member of Congress becuase he wasn't often in the spotlight with his parties leadership. While I disagree given Charlie's role as leader of the moderate compromise-friendly Tuesday group Republicans, I think Hodes values are illustrated by his attacks.

While representing an Independent district, Mr. Hodes has done his level best to spend as much time as possible with his parties ultr-liberal leadership, supporting Steny Hoyer's visit to New Hampshire only a few days ago, and reneging on his pledge to oppose bork barrel spending. At the same time, after only 4 months in Washington, he's decided that he doesn't need to hear from or respond to his constituents.

Given the fact that not a single member of Paul's family still lives in New Hampshire (unlike the Bass', whose New Hampshire roots run deep, Peggo Hodes has moved to DC with Paul, their son goes to Berkley, and their daughter is also in DC at American University) I can't imagine how he thinks he's going to Represent those "New Hampshire Values" he talked so much about last year. Then again, I'm not sure someone who thinks union campaign donations are more important than voting rights ever really understood to begin with.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Hodes D-NH is definitely out of touch, and he has barely begun

By Just Me Posted in Archived — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have generally complained about the fact that I have written my new congressman Paul Hodes several times in opposition to various bills and the fact that he hasn't bothered to responde to me.

I confess I wasn't a huge fan of my former congressman Charlie Bass, but he was always good about responding to any letters I sent him, and when he voted opposite of my desire he always argued why he was voting the way he was. If his letters were form letters, he hid it well (or his staffers did).

Well I finally got a response from Hodes, and it was over the the Employer Free Choice Act (ie the give more power to the unions and deny people their right to a secret ballot bill).
He apparantly didn't bother to read my letter, because it was pretty clear that I was opposed to the bill and why, but here is his response:

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. I appreciate hearing from you. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this important piece of legislation.

The Employee Free Choice Act will make it easier for American workers to once again negotiate for both the higher wages and benefits necessary to care for their families. The bill helps workers form a union and negotiate fair contracts with their employers. Union employees earn on average 30 percent more than nonunion workers. Making the process to form a union easier is a necessary step to providing the best benefits to American workers.

On March 1, 2007 I voted in favor of H.R. 800 to help the American worker fight for fair wages and better benefits. H.R. 800 passed with 241 votes and has moved on to the Senate for consideration. As a cosponsor of this bill, I look forward to its final passage in the Senate and seeing the Employee Free Choice Act signed into law by the President.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with my office. I appreciate you taking the time to express your views I will continue to work with you and for New Hampshire's working families throughout my term in Washington. If you have any other concerns or interests please contact my office and check my website http://hodes.house.gov.
Sincerely,
Paul Hodes
Member of Congress


Please note that he somehow assumed that I supported the bill, and wants to work with me and my concerns LOL.

Honestly I would almost rather him not responde to my letters than respond with a form letter that assumed support for the bill.

Can't say my new congressman is getting high marks from me.

Hodes/Pelosi Reject Commanders Advice

Returning readers probably agree that I've had some trouble ellucidating Paul Hode's clear hypocracy when it came to his election year promises and his actual behavior in Washington. That being said, I think that a recent letter to Fosters Online and an op-ed by former Congressman Chuck Douglass do a great job describing Hodes seeming inability t0 exhibit that spine we all heard so much about back in September, October and November.

In particular Congressman Douglass says:

During his campaign Hodes also said that he would listen to the commanders on the ground..... as recently as Feb. 7, in a letter to President Bush, Hodes and other Democrats said they supported the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group.

On page 73 of the 96-page book version, it says the Iraq Study Group could support "a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."

New ground commander General Petraeus believes such steps could be successful. Thus, once again, February's letter is ignored in March's vote.

While you'll need to read the whole Fosters letter, they do a nice job describing how absurd Democrats charges of being in "lockstep with their party leadership" are considering how very little dissention their has been from Reps Hodes or Shea-Porter, who have blithly ignored Nrw Hampshire's moderate tendencies in order to support one of the most highly partisan and invasive 4 months in Congressional history.

Hodes vs. Military Familes: The Video

So I know I wrote a bit about this a few days back, but I just got done reading Doug's new post over at Granite Grok and getting to see the video added a whole new dimension for me.

I particularly enjoy how Paul told these families that "he wasn't sure they understood how appropriations work." Now, I can't imagine exactly what he was saying, because it almost appeared as if he was trying to suggest that our troops would still have funding even after this the artificial withdrawal date he voted for. The fact is, the Army has already had to cut back on allot of expenses, particularly training for reservists, and all four service chiefs have already told Congress that without supplemental funding, they'll soon have to stop repairing their equipment. Then again, its not as if Nancy Pelosi wants to cut short her vacation or anything, she's obviously been far too busy to consider passing a final supplemental.

Anyway, definitely check out Doug's commentary, I'm attaching the video to this post.

Hodes Supports Pelosi's Felony

While I may agree with Paul Hodes thought that "it is important to engage in diplomacy with people you disagree with," I can't quite figure why he thinks that that means that the leader of his political party should have carte blanche to ignore the Logan Act, commiting a felony by the way, and get played by a terrorist sponsoring dictator?

We all know that diplomacy needs to work, but that doesn't mean that Democrats should ignore the constitutionally mandated seperation of executive and legislative powers. Nancy Pelosi was elected by her peers in Congress to run the House of Representatives, not to engage in illegal, hasty, and illinformed diplomacy. Lets hope this farce ends sooner rather than later, and maybe, just maybe, Representative Hodes will decided to take a lesson from his time as a prosecutor and support the law and his oath to uphold the constitution.

________________________________________________________

Pelosi's diplomacy: She speaks only for herself
The Union Leader
April 8, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken it upon herself to launch diplomatic missions to several Middle Eastern nations and act not only as an official spokesman and representative of the United States, but as a messenger between hostile countries. This is more than foolish, it is dangerous.

Pelosi has made it clear that her reason for pretending to be secretary of state is because she disagrees with the Bush administration's handling of Middle Eastern affairs. So by its very nature her trip sends conflicting messages to our allies and enemies, weakens our position overseas and undermines the administration, which, by the way, is constitutionally entrusted with conducting foreign affairs. But since when has Pelosi been concerned about obeying the Constitution?

Yes, Republican members of Congress have visited these same countries. But they do so as individual members speaking only for themselves. Pelosi pretends to speak for the United States government, or at least the House of Representatives.

In addition to assuming powers she does not have, she's blundering through an incredibly sensitive political minefield. As The Washington Post reported last week in an editorial criticizing Pelosi's trip, she delivered a message to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks," and she claimed that Syria wanted to "resume the peace process." None of it was true.

"Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda," the Post wrote.

New Hampshire 2nd District Rep. Paul Hodes told us on Thursday that he supported Pelosi's trip because "it is important to engage in diplomacy with people you disagree with."

That might be so, but it is not the job of the speaker of the House to conduct foreign policy. And it is especially dangerous for her to do so with a murderous, hostile, terror-supporting regime.
The Democratic leadership in Congress has been in office only a few months and already appears drunk on its own power.

Its leaders think they can -- and have the authority to -- run a war and decide our foreign policy.

But Congress has no such authority, and now we see why.

Peggo and Paul Meet with Troop Supporters

It's good to see that Rep. Hodes has decided to meet with folks from both sides of the spectrum on Iraq, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why Peggo Hodes (who I don't remember ever standing for office) would have the temerity to think that she was the "focus" of their "blame."

"I'm not here to be a focus of your blame," she said during the discussion

Nor can I understand why her feelings regarding the how the war is going could possibly matter?

After being interrupted, she said, "I don't want 3,000 more people to die for a war that can't be won."

I mean, yes, Rep. Hodes has certainly now had the advantage of expert counsel at the top secret level, but I would certainly hope he hasn't divulged any of that information to his wife, who I can only assume has not recieved top secret security clearance nor a sound foreign policy or military education during her career as a kiddie pop star.

Aside from my thoughts regarding the incredibly absurd notion of Peggo Hodes having this sort of discussion with any military mother while her own son is busy learning how to be a musician at Berklee where, if his facebook friends are any indication, he's enjoying a life dressing up in bikini's and pretending to receive fellatio from our nation's bygone leaders. I can't help but question Mr Hodes sincerity when he said his vote wasn't political. Why else would he vote for a bill bought and paid for with pork that won't remove our troops from "an unwinnable war" till only a month prior to the next election?

_____________________________________________________________

Hodes chastised for supporting Iraq pullout
By MICHAEL COUSINEAU
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff

CONCORD – Family members of troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan poured out their anger and frustration at U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes yesterday, punctuated by emotional exchanges that illustrated the wars' divide on the homefront.

One woman stormed out of the session; several questioned Hodes' commitment to the troops while supporting a troop pullout deadline; and another woman chided the congressman's wife for picking up a pen to write down her e-mail address.

"My son will never come home," an angry Natalie Healy said of her son, Dan, who was killed in Afghanistan in June 2005. "He would be horrified and ashamed of this country for what it has done to the troops. You can take that back to Congress and tell every single one of those men and women."

Hodes last month joined a majority in the House backing an Iraq spending bill that set a timeline for a troop withdrawal and also included non-war related spending items that some said were needed to get the bill passed.

When Gerry Duncan of Nashua asked Hodes whether the bill would have passed if the non-war items weren't included, Hodes hesitated and said, "I don't know."

"I'm done," declared an angered Duncan, whose husband, Col. Richard Duncan, chief of staff of the New Hampshire Army National Guard, was injured in Afghanistan. She then walked out.
Sue Peterson of Weare, whose son Alex is a member of the 3643rd Security Force in the Army National Guard now in Iraq, said mixing money for the war with farm and other products was a disservice to the troops.

"I am so outraged and I'm trying to be calm listening to everybody," she said. But lumping everything into one bill was to "compare Alex and all the other soldiers to milk, peanuts, fish and spinach."

Family members frequently interrupted Hodes, first asking a question, then interrupting while he tried to deliver an answer.

"I haven't gotten to finish a single sentence yet," he said more than 15 minutes into the meeting.
When Hodes started talking about military health-care facilities, Robert Hodges of Wolfeboro interrupted.

"Don't try to divert us to another area," he said, telling Hodes he had two sons serving in Iraq, Andrew and Danny, the latter suffering a concussion while serving with the 94th Military Police.
"To have you people pull the rug from under them is unconscionable," he said.

The 11-member group represented the first group of family members to request a formal meeting with Hodes, who took office in January.

"I think there are no good options," Hodes said of America's future role in Iraq. "I think that unfortunately --"

"I think winning is," Healy said, drawing applause.
She asked what was the alternative.

"Can we sit by and watch the bloodbath after we pull out? Can we do that as a country?" asked Healy. "The fact of the matter is we've gone into this country. It is now in disarray, and it would be dishonorable of us to leave it as is and leave it to the wolves."

During the hour-long meeting that lasted twice the scheduled length, the congressman's wife, Peggo, asked the group how America could win the war.

"I'm not here to be a focus of your blame," she said during the discussion, which often had multiple people talking at once. After being interrupted, she said, "I don't want 3,000 more people to die for a war that can't be won."

When Mrs. Hodes held pen and paper, one member accused her of trying to quiz the group. She said she was only writing her e-mail address to pass along.

The congressman said he had attended military briefings at "the highest level" and "the military believes that ultimately a political situation, a diplomatic solution, is going to be what's required in order to make the kind of progress we want to make."

Gail Giarrusso, whose nephew served two tours in Iraq, wants Congress to unite behind the troops.

"While they're serving this nation in harm's way 24-7, you get to take vacations," the Stratham woman said. "You should be in Washington until this is resolved, until they have the support that they deserve while they're at war. You should not be paid until this is resolved."
Hodes dismissed talk of playing politics with the war. "For me, this isn't about politics," he said.
Nearing the end of the session, Hodes looked to get in a few sentences. "I've let you folks shout at me for nearly an hour," he said.

Afterward, Healy called the session "very rewarding for everybody," Hodes said he was "moved and touched" by what he heard.

What Does Paul Hodes Really Care About?

It's always hard for those of us on the outside of things to figure out exactly what politicians are actually supporting. Often, their public rhetoric simply panders to the audience of the moment. With that in mind, I've combed through the over 850 Dear Colleague letters sent around the House of Representatives over the last two weeks to determine what issues Rep. Hodes feels merit his personal attention. Though not easily accessible, these letters are publicly available and paint a striking picture of Hodes' real take on things.
Rep. Hodes has seen fit to sign onto the sum total of ten of these letters, which one would hope indicates the importance of these issues to him and, more importantly, what isn't.
1. Dear Colleague; Health; Appropriations; Support NIH Funding2. Dear Colleague; Education; Arts; Support Arts in Education! 3. Dear Colleague; Environment; State Wildlife Grants Letter Second Chance! 4. Dear Colleague; Financial Education; Co-Sponsor the Financial Literacy Month Resolution5. Dear Colleague; Taxpayer Rights, Consumer Privacy & Identity Theft;6. Dear Colleague; International Relations; Africa; Darfur Accountability and Divestment7. Dear Colleague: Economic Development/EDA funding8. Dear Colleague; Appropriations; Support the Manufacturing Extension Partnership9. Dear Colleague; Appropriations; Support LIHEAP10. Dear Colleague; Appropriations; Social Services; Support the Community Service Block Grants
As indicated above, 7 of the 10 letters Mr. Hodes signed onto call for additional funding for education, community service, energy, economic development and medical research. So what's missing?

Apparently, Energy Independence, the War in Iraq, support for our troops, or basically anything else this man campaigned against Charlie Bass to support!

During the last two weeks, Paul Hodes has refused to sign onto nearly a dozen letters supporting our troops, nearly three dozen supporting alternative energy initiatives, and over 80 dealing with the War in Iraq. This, during the same period in which he has supposedly been engaged in a major debate on our future course in that war torn country!

So, my conclusion? Paul Hodes is trying to play both sides of the political spectrum, ignoring the progressive base that got him elected in hopes of appearing moderate to New Hampshire's majority independent voters while actively supporting big government spending. I guess he thinks that this is his best course politically, I just wish the strength of his convictions matched his rhetoric or ambition.

What Paul Hodes Didn't Address

If anyone heard Paul Hodes speech for the Democratic party's weekly radio address this weekend, I'd love to hear some feedback.

Personally, I thought it was a well crafted pre-recorded speech, basically saying very little, but effectively rehashing old lines attacking Halliburton and the other contractors supporting our troops. It was also inspirsed with a fairly self-congratulatory section regarding the irresponsible lack of support for soldiers on outpatient status at Walter-Reed. It really was pretty good, as long as you accept that the address is intended in its entirety as a political attack.

Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but during a time when Democrats supporters are rallying, marching, and burning our devoted servicemembers in effigy, a word of thanks would have been appropriate, and, just perhaps, the Congressman could have found a few words to ask people to recognize that these brave men and women are putting themselves in harms way for all Americans - defending the very freedoms upon which these individuals so blithely trample.

I know how many of my liberal friends would respond to my last paragraph. They would tell me that by "providing needed funds" Democrats are doing more than enough to support our troops. The problem is, they miss the essential reality that our nation's soldiers don't place their lives on the line for long-term financial benefits or health care, they do so because the warrior ethos under which they live demands that they "place the mission first, never accept, never quit, and never leave a fallen comrade."

Their could be no greater disgrace than forcing these brave men and women to abandon their mission for political gains. If Democrats truly believed that our mission in Iraq was an unnecessary waste of lives and resources, than they would have allowed Congress to vote on an immediete withdrawal, rather than a politically motivated resolution that will effectivly ensure failure, but extend the dying until September, 2008.

____________________________________________________

Paul Hodes (NH-02) Gives Democratic Radio Address

Listen to the Democratic Radio Address that took place on 03/24/2007 with the Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire. Download the file here.

Text:

"Good morning. This is Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire.

"Last week, Americans marked the four-year anniversary of the war in Iraq. While anniversaries are usually something to celebrate, most Americans don't feel like celebrating right now.

"The war in Iraq has cost us dearly in lives and dollars. We've lost more than 3,200 American troops in Iraq, including 18 from my home state of New Hampshire. Tens of thousands more have been injured. The war has cost American taxpayers nearly half a trillion dollars, and diverted precious resources from fighting al Qaeda and the war on terror. As we enter the fifth year of the war, Iraq remains in chaos and the Iraqi government has failed to stand up and take ownership of the country.

"But even after four years of lives lost and stay-the-course policies that aren't working, the President refuses to change his course. On the anniversary of the war, the President continues to insist on an open-ended commitment in Iraq and another rubber stamp from Congress.
"I'm proud to report that this week, under Democratic leadership, the House of Representatives told the President that it's time to change course. We are holding him accountable for a new direction in Iraq.

"Yesterday, the House of Representatives approved the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act - landmark legislation that will help change direction in Iraq, and require the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their own country.
"This legislation is critical. First, we support our troops by providing needed funding for their equipment and protection. But this bill is not a blank check to fund the war in Iraq. It requires that the Iraqis meet the benchmarks for success that the President himself outlined in January.
"The bill also provides more funding and resources to prevail against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We funded our troops to make sure they receive the resources, training and equipment they need. And we increased funding for our veterans, so they get the care and support they have earned and deserve.

"The legislation the House passed yesterday ensures the disastrous Walter Reed scandal is never repeated. Every American was shocked when we learned of injured troops living in squalor at the Army's finest medical center. Democrats responded quickly, demanding new leadership at Walter Reed and investigating how this scandal occurred.

"In the process, we learned about unacceptable conditions at other military and VA hospitals around the country. As a member of the House Oversight Committee, I helped to investigate the problems at Walter Reed, and I can assure you the Congress will continue to keep a close eye on our military and VA facilities to ensure our troops and our veterans get the care they deserve.

"And while we put an end to the underfunding of our veterans' care, we are also cracking down on the over funding of politically connected contractors such as Halliburton. We're investigating the loss of billions of dollars that have gone missing in Iraq and fighting to stop the contractor rip-offs that have plagued this war. For four long years, a Republican Congress ignored that responsibility, and billions of dollars were wasted.

"Democrats are fighting to bring real change to Washington. With our vote this week, we're helping our troops, protecting our veterans, and fighting to end the waste, fraud and abuse. After four years of a failed policy, Democrats are insisting on a new direction in Iraq and a real plan that holds the Iraqi people accountable for their own country.

"Last November, people in New Hampshire and across the country voted for change. They voted for a new Congress that would stop acting as a rubber stamp for this President and begin confronting the problems and challenges facing our nation. And no challenge is more important than bringing our troops home from Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible.

"This week, the Democratic Congress took a significant step in that direction. We hope the President will respond by listening to the American people. We hope he will work with Members of Congress from both parties to bring this war to an end.

"This is Paul Hodes of New Hampshire. I thank you for listening."

Hodes Has Time for Statues?

Having recently heard that Representative Hodes has been "too busy" to make many of his meetings with constituents and that he was hard pressed to get to his own birthday fundraising event (talk about tacky), I was suprised to hear that he's been making time to talk to sing his woes to long since passed Daniel Webster. Lets hope that he will try and make as much time for his constituents as he does for himself.


___________________________________________________________
From The Examiner:

Hodes bonds with Capitol Hill statue

You can never tell what will happen in Washington after the sun sets.

For Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., it occasionally involves talking to the statues in the U.S. Capitol Building.

During Tuesday’s Welcome Reception Honoring the 110th Congress, the freshman lawmaker told attendees that, late at night, he’ll sometimes go over to the statue of fellow Granite Stater Daniel Webster in Statuary Hall and chat him up.

“We have conversations,” Hodes said, although he wouldn’t reveal what about. We can only hope, however, that it’s only a matter of time before Hodes, who has recorded four contemporary acoustic/folk albums with his wife, starts serenading Webster.

Hodes Panders to Homophobia

It's a pretty odd day when I agree with the majority of Democrats in New Hampshire, but I have to say that I think Paul Hodes demonstrated the most absurd reaction to a blatently homophobic political hatchet job by withdrawing his support from Ray Buckley.

I mean, what gives? Everyone already knows Ray's gay, it's not some abdominal secret nor should it be. He was just cleared by the Attorney General of any wrong doings associated with fraudulent charges of child pornography . Heck, Hillary Clinton congratulated the man for his "grace" during the investigation!

I guess I don't understand how clearly legal, albeit inappropriate, footage could cause the Congressman to have such a rapid shift in his opinion. It smacks of the worst kind of pandering to his constituents basest and most degrading instincts.

With one investigation already completed, who does he think are the "appropriate authorities" who should be looking into this? If not the Attorney General, who?


Videos and Article follow:

__________________________________________________________

From The Hill:

New Hampshire Dems miffed at Hodes over withdrawal of support for candidate
By Aaron Blake
March 19, 2007

When Rep. Paul Hodes’s (D-N.H.) office sent out a release Friday night in response to some Internet video footage of a candidate for the state party chairmanship, the two-day-old video had been viewed only a few hundred times and drawn just one comment.By Monday afternoon, it had been viewed 4,500 times, drawn about 70 comments and ignited a firestorm of intra-party anger — the bulk of which appears to have landed squarely on the shoulders of Hodes, rather than the candidate, Ray Buckley.

Hodes’s action in response to the video posted on YouTube has put him in the doghouse among his New Hampshire Democratic colleagues. They believe the announcement of his pulled support of Buckley created a story that otherwise wouldn’t have made it into the mainstream press, rehashing a months-old controversy that had faded just in time for the election for state party chairman.State Democratic operatives said Hodes, a freshman who defeated Rep. Charlie Bass (R) in November and figures to draw a serious challenge in 2008, blindsided state Democrats with the release.“Nothing was happening, and friggin’ Hodes — excuse me, I’m really angry at him — went and did this on his own,” an operative said. “There are a lot of people up here who are really angry at him right now.”Despite their anger, Democrats say Hodes’s action won’t affect his standing in the party or support for his 2008 reelection bid.

Hodes sent out a one-paragraph statement Friday just after 6 p.m., in which he said he had reviewed the clip and called it “highly disturbing.” He then urged “the proper authorities” to investigate the matter and pulled his support for Buckley’s campaign for the state party chairmanship, which culminates Saturday when officers are elected.The six-minute video splices decades-old clips of Buckley using foul language and acting lewdly with narrated footage of Buckley’s profile on a social-networking website, which is linked to a group called “Gays in New Hampshire” that includes boys as young as 16. A New Hampshire Republican operative, Joe Kelly Levasseur, has taken credit for posting the footage.

The video and Hodes’s announcement bring back a months-olds controversy begun when a former housemate accused Buckley of possessing child pornography. Buckley withdrew from the race in January after Republican state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt lodged the accusation, but he rejoined it after he was cleared by the state attorney general’s office this month.Vaillancourt has said he provided Levasseur with footage for the video.Through it all, Hodes is sticking to his guns.“Paul stands by his statement,” spokeswoman Bergen Kenny said. “He did what he did, and he’s not running away from it.”Hodes is the only major state party figure thus far to pull his support for Buckley. Some, including outgoing Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, joked about the situation Sunday at their St. Patrick’s Day Parade Breakfast.Gov. John Lynch, who backed away from Buckley when the accusations were first raised and who has called the video “offensive,” is nonetheless sticking by him.

Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, another freshman Democrat who endorsed Buckley, appeared to hedge this weekend but didn’t officially pull her support. Her office did not respond to requests for comment.While Lynch is popular in the state, Hodes and Shea-Porter likely will be among the top Republican targets in 2008, meaning missteps will need to be few and far between. The state will be a battleground, as Sen. John Sununu (R) appears vulnerable and both state houses flipped last year, not to mention the early presidential primary. Former Rep. Jeb Bradley (R), whom Shea-Porter beat in November, already is set to run against her.Hodes and Shea-Porter haven’t made much news thus far in a state that isn’t used to having Democratic members of Congress, according to Mark Wrighton, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire.

Last week, Hodes received some press for introducing his first bill, and for his questions of Valerie Plame.“The key for them is to try to accrue as many of the advantages of incumbency as possible before the 2008 elections,” Wrighton said.In the video, the narrator specifies repeatedly that he is not accusing Buckley of breaking any laws but is merely bringing into question his character and fitness for a state party chairmanship.

Buckley has said he will resume his campaign and denounced Vaillancourt’s and Levasseur’s efforts. He did not return a call seeking comment.

Military Strategy: Hodes/Pelosi Style

Back before the Novermber election, Rep. Hodes told everyone he had a plan on how to get out of Iraq. I've discussed it before, and you can scroll down to check it out, so I'm not going to rehash it. Suffice it to say, if he'd told New Hampshire voters that this would be the result of his "thoughtful" (and ignorantly dangerous) plan...would anyone have voted for him??

Hodes\Democrats Ignoring Earmark "Reform"

In January, Paul Hodes came to the floor for the first time to support legislation "reforming" the earmark process, saying that the Congress had to "reform the way we spend taxpayers' money, and the way we write and pass the bills meant to protect their interests." With that in mind, he co-sponsored and supported the passage of major legislation that Democracy for New Hampshire said would ensure that "there [would] be no secret deals between legislators and special interests -- there [would] be full disclosure of all earmarks, requiring Members to certify that earmarks provided would be for the public good -- not financially benefiting themselves or their spouses."

Given that strong record of support, I find it hard to imagine why nary a word has emanated from Mr. Hodes new penthouse office in Washington regarding the Democrats recent decision to ignore the rules they instituted only two months ago.

As recently reported by Roll Call, Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn) is aghast that Republicans would be so "mean spirited" as to follow through with the spirit of earmark reform by providing the public with access to the over 300 Member requests for earmarks in upcoming Water Resource Development legislation.

Apparently, Chairman Oberstar believes that the public should only be allowed to see the requests that have been approved by the Committee, saying that "making Member requests public before they had been vetted by the committee simply would serve to embarrass Members who might not be experts in the act’s requirements." I'm not sure about everyone else, but I'd certainly like to know if my Congressman didn't understand the legislation he was trying change.

I guess we shouldn't expect any sort of a comment from Rep. Hodes, who has obviously been too busy supporting his union allies by attacking democracy in the workplace, and certainly none from Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, whose distaste for earmarks seemed to last about as long as her first visit to Washington, when she hired then lobbyist Suzanne Palmer to direct her legislative efforts. Maybe they'll both surprise me, but for some reason I doubt it.

___________________________________________________________________

Earmark Requests Pulled
By Paul Singer
Roll Call Staff
March 14, 2007

Democratic objections forced House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Republicans to pull dozens of Democratic earmark requests from the panel’s public files on Tuesday, as a subcommittee prepared to mark up a project-laden water resources bill today.
The dispute erupted after Roll Call reported Tuesday that Republicans had made available for public inspection the earmark requests of both parties for legislation making technical corrections to the 2005 highway bill. Democrats claimed that Republicans had violated protocol by releasing Democratic request letters to the public, while ranking member John Mica (R-Fla.) said the majority was flouting its own rules. The dispute raised the prospect that today’s markup could be canceled while the two sides sort out the ground rules.

A little before noon Tuesday, while a Roll Call reporter was leafing through a stack of the several-hundred Water Resources Development Act earmark request letters on file in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Republican offices, a staff member came over and explained that Democrats had requested their letters be removed from the public file. Several staffers then pulled the Democratic letters from the file drawer, and the reporter complied by handing over the request letters of Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.), Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (Calif.) and 15 other Democrats from the pile he was reading.

Mica happened to walk into the office at that moment and clearly was caught off-guard by the Democratic objections. “I’m not playing that game,” Mica said. “They are all free and open and we should not be pulling them ... if [the Democrats] want us to pull them, they are not complying with their own rules.” After a discussion with staff members, Mica reluctantly agreed to allow the sorting process to continue, as long as it was clear that the Democratic letters would not be returned to the majority offices.

Mica said the Democratic request raised questions about whether today’s markup in the subcommittee on water resources and the environment could still proceed, given that he no longer was sure how the new earmark rules were being applied. The requests are supposed to be known to both parties 24 hours before the markup, he said, and “I have to know that nothing is being slipped in at the last minute.”

Mica said he was hoping to talk to Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) before the subcommittee markup, but they had not been able to schedule a conversation. “If they want to violate their own rule and hide their earmark requests, I don’t know what we are going to do,” he said.

Jim Berard, a spokesman for the committee Democrats, said Republicans never were supposed to release Democratic request letters for earmarks that were not included in the final bill. “They had not checked with us ahead of time about whether they could release the Democratic requests for [public] inspection,” Berard said Tuesday morning. “It was a breach of protocol, and we asked that our requests be removed” from the public file. A few hours later, Berard clarified that Democrats actually never asked Republicans to remove the Democratic requests from the file. “I misspoke,” he said. The Democrats did complain that releasing the documents without prior notice was a breach of protocol, but the Republicans “determined that the best course of action was to withdraw the requests [from the public file]. We didn’t ask them to do that.”

A Republican staffer responded, “Democratic staff were upset that we were making Democratic Members’ project requests available, and after complaints, we pulled those requests from our file and referred any further inquiries about Democratic Member project requests to the Democratic staff offices.”

Oberstar said in an interview Tuesday afternoon that he believes that making Member requests public before they had been vetted by the committee simply would serve to embarrass Members who might not be experts in the act’s requirements or the limitations of the legislation the committee is handling.

“An attempted earmark is not a crime,” Oberstar said. “I want to treat Members fairly. I assume when a Member comes to me with a request, it is my job to help them do it correctly. They are coming here for advice and guidance.”

And that advice should be confidential until the product is final, he said. “I felt that we should not release these Member requests until we have vetted them and until they are in a bill and then that bill will be public.” Oberstar said publicizing the requests was akin to arresting someone for jaywalking when they simply are thinking about crossing against the red light. “Is this thought police, or what?” the chairman mused. “We are trying to save Members from making a mistake. ... I think it would be mean-spirited to say we are going to hang out all these projects and let all these Members be embarrassed.”

Democratic staffers on the committee say the procedure will be that when the water resources development bill — or any other legislation — is reported by the committee, it will include a list of earmarks in the bill and the names of the requesters. Those request letters will be made public, but requests that are not included in the bill will not be made public.

According to Oberstar, about 300 Members have asked for projects in the water resources development bill, but 30 Republicans and two Democrats had failed to file the necessary certification documents for their requests, so those projects were being stripped from the bill late Tuesday.

The language of the new House earmark rule states that the “written disclosure for any congressional earmarks ... included in any measure reported by the committee or conference report filed by the Chairman of the committee or any subcommittee thereof shall be open for public inspection.”

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the language of the rule appears to support Democratic contentions that only successful earmark requests must be disclosed. But “Rep. Mica gets it and he gets the spirit of what this is about,” Ellis said. “The public deserves to know what the Members are asking for and where the money is going ... the Democrats, by stripping the information out of your hands and squirreling it away in a bookshelf until the very last minute, are missing the point.” Ellis said that the irony in all this is that Democrats are now in the position of favoring less disclosure than Republicans, but “they are the ones who won an election in part because of this.”

Hodes-Democrats Too Liberal For San Francisco

It's a sad day when the San Francisco Examiner thinks more of personal liberty than the Representatives from a state with the motto Live Free or Die.

_________________________________________________________
Democrats: Keep secret ballot sacred
The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper,
The Examiner
Feb 16, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO - It’s nearly 60 years since the British writer George Orwell warned about the political misuse of the English language. The democratic West, he worried, was not immune to the propagandistic practices of totalitarian countries, in which the power-driven would throw glittering words and phrases about promiscuously, intending by them the public acceptance of exactly the opposite of their historical meanings. Sorry to say, but Rep. George Miller has become adept at the troubling practice.
He’s not alone, of course. Politicians on both the left and the right — and from all parties — make regular deposits in the bank of linguistic corruptions. But on Wednesday the East Bay Democrat pushed through his Education and Labor Committee an anti-freedom, anti-democracy bill with the exquisitely Orwellian title of “The Employee Free Choice Act of 2007.” There’s no love for freedom in the legislation now moving to the House floor.
“Under the Employee Free Choice Act,” according to Miller’s cleverly worded press release, “if a majority of workers in a workplace sign cards authorizing a union, then the workers would get a union. This majority sign-up process is permitted under current law, but only if the employer allows it. Many employers instead force employees to undergo an election process administered by the National Labor Relations Board. In NLRB elections, the deck is stacked heavily against pro-union workers.”
To consider the farrago of misinformation in that paragraph, it is useful to recall the purpose of the NLRB, created in the Great Depression over the objections of Big Business by the sainted President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Throughout its history the NLRB has been seen as the great enabler of union organizing, and business leaders did whatever they could to keep labor issues from reaching it for resolution. For Miller even implicitly to portray it as the tool of capitalist board rooms should offend intellectually honest progressives.
True enough, in its nearly eight decades of evolution, the board proved not to be the monstrous incubator of union bosses Big Business feared. What it has done (to the credit of FDR) is arbitrate labor disputes, establishing rules and procedures to assure fairly conducted union elections. Importantly, its existence recognizes that free-enterprising individual workers and business owners have rights, too.
What Miller really wants is to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, substituting a “card check” system whereby union activists collect cards allegedly signed by employees and supposedly signifying their votes on such matters as allocating their assessments. Abuses of workers’ true wishes not only are potential, they are guaranteed. There is no “free choice” in this travesty, clearly a payoff to union leaders who contributed so handsomely to the Democrats’ November election victory.
Honest Democrats who hold the secret ballot as sacred should deny the congressman his power trip. We encourage readers to contact Rep. Miller at http://www.examiner.com/George.Miller@mail.house.gov.

"Secret Ballots Unfair" says Hodes

While Woodrow Wilson believed that self determination was the God given right of all free peoples, modern day Democrats like Paul Hodes have apparently decided that free and fair elections are an outdated and abhorrent concept. Citing apparent "unfairness" in the current system of secret ballot elections, Mr. Hodes and his colleagues seem to think that they've found the solution...just let union representatives collect signed ballots on their own and then turn them in. That sounds totally fair..right? I mean, a union representative wouldn't cheat, would they? I mean, that's almost as unheard of as a politician avoiding the truth right?

If anyone has been paying attention, the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" is a truly shocking piece of legislation that would deny employees the right to a secret-ballot election when considering representation by unions. In fact, it would illegalize employers efforts to provide their employees with additional compensation unless it has negotiated with the union to do so.

While our forefathers fought and died for the right to elections free from intimidation, Representative Hodes now thinks that "the working middle class" cannot be trusted to vote in their own best interest during secret ballot elections. Instead, in a flagrant act of political hypocrisy, he and his fellow democrats are seeking to prop up their failing union political base by denying citizens the right to choose their own path. While union representatives and their allies continue to assert that employers intimidate employees into voting against unions, the long history of American unions' unsavory connection with organized crime and documented evidence of violent coercion suggests otherwise.

Then again, this isn't exactly a point on which we should be asking Mr. Hodes to be reasonable, or fair, or even judicious. The reality is that this vote was bought and paid for long before he roamed the halls of Congress on "our" behalf. Then again, it's still sad to think that our esteemed Representative only thinks that his constituents right to self determination is worth a mere $200,000 in political donations. I guess Wilson just thought democracy was worth more important than a few cocktail parties and campaign buttons.

___________________________________________________________________

Article: http://www.nhpr.org/node/12373
NPR Interview: http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/nht-2007-02-26-st1.wax
The Legislation: H.R. 800: The Employee Free Choice Act

Hodes on Iraq - Keep Funding It, Just Through Regular Appropriations

I wrote the earlier post prior to noticing that Rep. Hodes has recently signed onto a bill dealing with the War in Iraq.

This legislation, H.Res 97, would require a quarterly report on how reconstruction funds are being spent in Iraq and further states that Congress:

(1) should create a Truman Committee to conduct an ongoing study and investigation of Operation Iraqi Freedom contracts;
(2) that funding requests for Operation Iraqi Freedom beginning with FY2008 must come through the regular appropriations process and not through emergency supplementals; and
(3) the Administration should condition further American financial, military, and political resources upon improvement in Iraqi assumption of principal responsibility for internally policing Iraq.

This is a pretty coherent position, and, frankly, one that almost any fiscal conservative should agree with. We definitely need to investigate spending in Iraq, if for no other reason than to end years of unsubstantiated allegations of widespread abuse, we should impose general spending restraint by putting money for the war "on the books," and we need to hold the Iraqi's responsible for their efforts at self governance. Even President Bush agrees with the later of these requests.

The only real policy question I think is raised by this resolution (beyond the fact that it's a resolution and not a law) is how placing the war "on budget" is going to affect the democrats self-imposed pay-go requirements. Are we simply going to reduce military spending across the board (placing our nation at risk from other adversaries) or is Mr. Hodes willing to responsibly limit domestic spending to make up the cost difference? I think not, if history serves, this resolution calls for a massive tax increase.

Hodes gets the Axe - But Still Lacks a Plan

I was amused to see that Rep. Hodes recently had the opportunity to entertain his fellow Democrats at their retreat in Williamsburg (another imporant weekday event that forced the majority party to ignore its promise to work a full 5 day week) along with fellow freshman Rep. John Hall. Given the recent back and forth in the Concord Monitor regarding Mr. Hodes lack of a plan for Iraq, I guess he's decided to take Bruce Currie's advice and simply duck the issue. I guess it's still just easier to blame someone else.

___________________________________________________________

From The Hill
Hodes gets the Axe


Democratic staffers surprised Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) and his wife, Peggo, last Friday night at the Democratic issues retreat in Williamsburg, Va., when they presented him with his 1948 Gibson SJ acoustic guitar, which Hodes thought was back in his Capitol office.
The Hodeses met when Paul responded to a help-wanted ad to join a folk rock band that Peggo started.

A House Democratic Caucus staffer secretly lugged Hodes’s guitar, which he nicknamed “Axe,” to the retreat. Axe came in handy Friday when Hodes and New York Democratic Reps. John Hall and Joseph Crowley sang Hall’s signature song, “Still the One.”
Hodes and his wife sang “Call Me the Breeze” by J.J. Kale and “Roseville Fair” by Bill Staines, which was popularized by Nancy Griffith.

Rep. Hodes Responds to the President's State of the Union Address

Representative Hodes recently responded to the President's call to send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad by demanding "a change of course, not an escalation." While his statement wasn't particularly radical (I have no doubt that the staffer who wrote his editorial grabbed it directly from the talking points provided by the Democratic leadership) I found it disturbing becuase it seems like he recognizes his responsibility to oppose the President's plan and refuses to act accordingly.

Like so many members of his party, Mr. Hodes campaigned on what he refered to as a plan for a responsible exit strategy from Iraq. He pledged to "hold the administration accountable and enforce, through the appropriations process, a responsible and comprehensive exit strategy." For those of us looking beyond the semantics, that meant cutting off funding for our troops in Iraq so the president would have to choose between their safety and retreat from his idealistic foreign policy goals.

Unlike with so many other politicians, particularily the 2nd Districts own longserving Charlie Bass, who urged caution and restraint, Mr Hodes' language seemed clear and simple. He was going to support a plan to bring home my friends and neighbors in the National Guard, he was going to force the President to redeploy our active duty forces in a matter of months, and he was going to support crafting a new coalition of nations to defend Iraq's nascent democracy.

Sadly enough, after a whole month as our Representative in the House, Mr. Hodes hasn't signed onto a single piece of legislation that would make an iota of difference to our posture in Iraq. In this, the first month of their return to the majority based on a campaign devoted in its totality to the War in Iraq, Mr. Hodes' party has passed 61 pieces of legislation, not a single one of which has anything to do with the War.

Some 17 pieces of legislation regarding the war are up for consideration in the House. While Representative Shea-Porter has followed through with her campaign pledge by acting as a co-sponsor of Representative Murtha's resolution, "To Redeploy US Forces from Iraq," Representative Hodes has forsaken his supporters.

In point of fact, other than the Democrats vaunted six "100 hour" bills, Mr. Hodes has gone out of his way to support only two pieces of legislation; one regarding bank holding company regulation and the other expanding the IRS's bureaucracy by prohibiting the secretary of the treasury to hire private companies to support their efforts.So I guess my question, the reason I've decided to add my first post to this blog, is this: Why does my Representative think banking regulations are more important than the lives of our brave soldiers in Iraq? What's changed so much since he was elected just 85 days ago?

(See attached editorial for context and please feel free to comment)

_____________________________
I'll work to change Bush's flawed war plan
By Rep. PAUL HODES
For the Monitor
January 27. 2007 8:32AM

On Tuesday evening I watched the State of the Union address for the first time as a member of Congress. While I found the pageantry inspiring, I was dismayed by the president's speech.We heard another attempt to allay, with hollow rhetoric, the concerns of an alarmed nation. Rather than seize an opportunity to level with the American people and set the new course they demand, the administration again chose to cling to its delusions and insist that its failing policies be continued unchallenged.

In 2003 the administration requested and received from Congress authority to invade Iraq on the basis of the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and presented an imminent threat to our national security. Senior administration officials claimed that the Iraqi government was connected with the al-Qaida terrorists who perpetrated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.We now know that neither the premise for the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq nor the claim of a connection to 9/11 was true.

After the fall of Baghdad, the administration sent in officials with little or no knowledge and understanding of Iraq, its people, its cultures or its politics. Costly mistakes, including the dismantling of the army and the failure to secure weapons stockpiles, paved the way for the current situation:

• More than $450 billion spent, with billions unaccounted for.

• An Iraqi government unwilling to control - or incapable of controlling - warring sects and their militias.

• More than 3,000 American soldiers killed, and more than 25,000 soldiers maimed or wounded.

• Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, wounded or driven from their homes by sectarian violence.
• A profound loss of respect for our country in the region and around the world.

The administration still has no plan for a responsible exit strategy for the troops mired in Iraq. But now, unbelievably, the president want to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq. This proposal is a cavalier rejection of the views of the American people, the consensus of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the counsel of military commanders.

Our strategic interests require a change of course, not an escalation. The imperative to support our troops requires a change of course, not an escalation. Last year, the Republican-controlled House declared in the Defense Authorization Bill that 2006 would be a year of transition to Iraqi control of Iraq, and that redeployment would begin at that point. Yet here we are in 2007, with the administration calling for escalation.

The time has come for this Congress to say enough is enough. The time has come and gone for statements of concern. The time has come and gone for "Trust but verify." It is now time for Congress to do what the American people said so clearly in November that they wanted us to do: change the course in Iraq. When you're in a hole, stop digging.I support our troops, and I oppose the administration's proposed escalation.

I resolve to work with my colleagues over the coming weeks for a concrete new direction in Iraq. In the absence of an acceptable plan from the president, the American people have called upon Congress to lead the way. Demand for a new direction in Iraq is, in large part, the reason I am in Washington, and I intend to honor that.

(U.S. Rep Paul Hodes represents New Hampshire's 2nd District. He is a Democrat from Concord.)