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.