GOP's Pressing Question on Medicare Vote (Buyer's Remorse)

Did Some Go Too Far To Change a No to a Yes?

Tuesday, December 23, 2003; Page A01

About 20 Republican congressmen -- all fiscal conservatives -- gathered nervously in a back room at the Hunan Dynasty restaurant on Capitol Hill on Nov. 21, trying to shore up their resolve to defy President Bush. It was the night of the big vote on the Bush administration's Medicare prescription drug bill, which they had concluded was too costly, and they began swapping tales about the intense lobbying bearing down on them.

Over egg rolls and pu-pu platters, one complained that a home-state politician had insinuated that he would run against him in the next primary unless the lawmaker voted for the bill. Another said House leaders had warned that if the bill was defeated because of his no vote, he might lose his subcommittee chairmanship. Several recalled being telephoned by insistent lobbyists from the health care industry.

But the most dramatic account was given by Rep. Nick Smith (Mich.), who is to retire next year and hopes his son will succeed him. According to two other congressmen who were present, Smith told the gathering that House Republican leaders had promised substantial financial and political support for his son's campaign if Smith voted yes. Smith added that his son, in a telephone call, had urged him to vote his conscience, and with the support of dissident colleagues, Smith stuck to his no vote.

The matter might have ended there had Smith not written his account in a Michigan newspaper column, adding an allegation involving threats of retaliation against his son's campaign if he voted no. Since then, he has declined to specify who might have pressured him, but his complaints have prompted outrage among Democrats and consternation among some Republican colleagues.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22782-2003Dec22.html

though I'm sure each and every one of them was somehow coerced in a very bad way. Still, they should have had some guts to speak out on why they wanted to vote no.

Someone who votes for massive deficits, big defense increases, and tax cuts for the rich?

That's what the conservatives have done as long as I've been paying attention.

That's what Republicans are, but that's not a fiscal conservative.

A TRUE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE believes that the budget should be in balance, except in true emergency situations.

A TRUE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE would require that revenues be held in balance with expenses, not just the other way around. That would be true even if it meant raising taxes.

A TRUE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE would not reduce revenues by cutting taxes without knowing that they would still match cash outflow.

The fake conservatives in power today believe in their two dimensional hypotheses more than they believe in what they say. So, cutting taxes and starving the beast is more important to them than to be A TRUE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE ! They have coopted the term and when it applies to them it is meaningless.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative. But, i don't believe in lower taxes, especially for those who can afford the taxes they're paying. That's not fiscal conservatism. That's libertarianism.

These buffoons don't know the difference, so they just appropriated the term and changed the definition to suit their simple minds.
The Professor

nt

Too mportant.

Here's Hastert CHASTIZING *Smith*-

snip>
Hastert spokesman Peter M. Jeffries described Smith's allegations as being without "foundation." House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he offered no deals to Smith. Like other Republican leaders, he called attention to Smith's clarification of his initial remarks, saying, "Nick has learned that words do matter, and they need to be both thoughtful and accurate."
end snip>

And here's EIGHT other repubs- several on the record HERE- saying it likely went down the way Smith said!

snip>
On the other hand, at least eight members of the Republican Study Committee -- a group of fiscally conservative House lawmakers, including many who opposed the Medicare bill -- said in interviews that they believe Smith told the truth about the pressure he received.

Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), who was present at the dinner, recalled Smith saying it was "people from leadership" who had offered the money. He said Smith did not say who it was, but he assumed it was someone who controlled a "large leadership PAC, who can raise a hundred thousand dollars by hosting a few fundraisers."

"I think something happened," Gutknecht said. "If it happened, then somebody in the leadership is guilty of at least gross stupidity. . . . Whoever made that comment should resign."

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who was also at the dinner, recalls Smith telling the group that "someone had said his son . . . would be the beneficiary if he would vote for the bill, up to the tune of about $100,000. . . . If Nick Smith said it happened, it happened."
end snip>

My, oh my. Maybe this isn't over at Hastert's whim just yet.

these losers really piss me off...

First, they didn't have the guts to vote the way they felt, instead, they caved in to the pressure and bribes and got into lock-step formation...

Second, they whine about their actions afterwards - guess it finally hit them that they just screwed over the people they were supposed to be representing...

Third, they cave again when asked to reveal who applied the pressure and illegal bribes in the first place...

spineless bastards...

:mad:

the land of the free, and the home of the brave and all that shit. That's why the Repugilcons win, they stick together. There may be a price to be payed for that down the road, but right now they're cocks of the walk. I have a feeling that their day will come, that they'll all be cought drinking the Kool-Aid at the wrong time and the descent into hell will be short and sweet. Still waiting............but it's bound to happen.

into bribery.

he is under right now!

God this is a GOOD Republican, or rather a good American... he is taking real risks folks