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.”