NY & Iraq

Lot of things have been happening the past week to report on – the biggest of course is Roskam delivered his floor speech and vote on the Iraq war resolution last week. I would written on this sooner, but I myself was taking advantage of the 3 day weekend to leave work a little bit early on Friday and head to New York with my girlfriend. It was a really interesting to go see ground zero and all the construction around where the World Trade Center used to be. Of course, all this got me thinking about a few things on the Iraq debate.

First of all, and it bears repeating, is the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The Republicans often try to link Iraq to 9/11, but the two are completely unrelated. Along those lines, I find it very interesting that the cities directly targeted by 9/11, NY and Washington DC, both overwhelmingly reject Bush and his Iraq policy. The good people of NY do not want to see their city attacked again. Their lives are literally at stake, but they realize that a surge of troops in Iraq will do nothing to make them safer at home. Rather it will only put others at risk.

The reason I was able to get off work and go to NY in the first place was that Monday was a Presidents Day holiday to celebrate George Washington’s Birthday. I think anyone listening to the Iraq debate should have been required to read his farewell address first. In it he warned against the U.S. getting involved recklessly in foreign entanglements. His warning of "do not go abroad in search of monsters to slay lest ye become one," should still be heeded even today.

Anyways, below are Roskam’s comments on Iraq. What do you think of his comments and of his vote to rubber stamp Bush’s Iraq policies?

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a House Concurrent Resolution, and the root verb of ``resolution'' is resolute. I just want to challenge the House today to consider the resolution of our enemies. I would like to read three quotes to you.

Resolved, by Samba bin Laden. The whole world is watching this war, and the two adversaries, the Islamic nation on the one hand and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.

Or how about this? Resolved, in the al Agenda charter: There will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet the enemy halfway, and there will be no room for dialogue with them.

Or how about this, and I am paraphrasing: Resolved, from Samba bin Ladens deputy, who said that the plan is to extend the jihad wave; to expel the Americans from Iraq and extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel and establish an Islamic authority.

Is there anybody among us who doubts the resolve and clarity with which our opponents are speaking? I don't.

I think what is lacking today in our conversation is the consequences of failure. The previous speaker used the words ``victory'' and ``success.'' He had a very low view of them, and I understand his characterization of those words. He said we have heard those words before. That is what the gentleman from New Jersey said.

But, do you know what? We will hear the word ``failure'' when it is used in the context of this challenge that is before us.

There is no question that there has been great difficulty that has gone before us in this fight. There is no question that there have been great mistakes that have been made, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of us acting as a coequal branch of government and calling for benchmarks and demarcation and holding the administration accountable for its decisions.

But if we fail in this, if we pull out, if we retreat, if we yield, what will happen? Is there anybody really who thinks that Iran, for example, will be less provocative? Is there anybody who thinks that al Agenda will be less provocative?

If we fail, extremism in this world, will it be ascendant or will it be descendant?

Madam Speaker, I close with a simple question, and that is, we need to ask, What is it about this resolution that will do one of two things? Does this encourage our troops, or does this discourage our enemies? I would suggest that this resolution, while it is serious, oh, it is very serious, it is not substantive. This is the ultimate expression of legislative passive aggression. It offers no substantive alternative.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition, and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Roskam continues to vote out of step with Il-6

Rep. Roskam continues to be a rubber stamp for the Republican leadership too conservative for Il-6. Yesterday's out of touch vote was for a Fiscal 2007 Continuing Resolution, which in layman’s terms is the spending budget for 2007 that was needed because the Republicans failed to complete a budget when they were in power. This resolution would basically continue the 2006 budget but with added funding for veterans' health care, the National Institutes of Health, tenant-based housing vouchers, Pell Grants, and military housing allowances.

The bill passed overwhelmingly, 286-140. While I don’t have polling data, I think most Americans would support continued 2006 spending with these needed additions. But not Roskam – he once again joined the minority of hard line conservatives with his dissenting vote. Seeing him once again vote against the majority of Americans and his Congressional colleagues, I thought it would be interesting to look at the most recent polling to see how Roskam’s other early votes compare to public opinion. Not surprisingly, it is clear the Roskam is voting way too conservatively and is out of touch with the majority of Americans and Il-6 residents.

Now to be fair, there is very little Il-6 specific polling out there so most of the polls I cite are national polls. But lets face it, Il-6 is a battleground district in the Chicago suburbs so we would tend to be pretty similar to the rest of the country. None of the polls are really even close, but if anyone can give me a reason why Il-6 would be so radically different from the rest of America, I’m all ears. And remember, Wheaton college enrollees make up only a small part of the electorate and even there they now allow dancing – so you’ll have to come up with a better reason then that!

Anyways, without further ado I’d like to present Roskam’s early voting.

Minimum Wage – Jan. 10th – HR 2
Despite the fact 86% of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, Roskam still voted no. It passed the House overwhelmingly, 315-116.

Stem Cell Research – Jan. 11th – HR 3
Overall Americans support using stem cell research to help cure diseases by a nearly 2-1 margin with 61% in support against only 31% who oppose such a measure. All of the leading Illinois Universities strongly supported allowing this critical research. Even State House Republican Leader Tom Cross recognizes the popularity of using stem cell research to find cures, "Stem cell research has bi-partisan support in both chambers, just as it has overwhelming support across the state and across the country." Despite Roskam’s no vote, it sailed through the House 253-174.

Medicare Part D – Jan. 12th – HR 4
79% of Americans support having Medicare use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices while only 17% are in opposition. Does Roskam side with American seniors and the 79% who would like them to have access to cheaper prescription drugs? Of course not. Despite Roskam siding with the pharmaceutical industry, the bill easily passed the House 255-170.

Energy – Jan. 19th – HR 6
Already written several posts about this vote. Despite Roskam’s no vote, it passed by over 100 votes, 264-163.

Not that it was needed, but there you have it. Further proof that Roskam is out-of-touch with his constituents and too conservative for Il-6.

Roakam's Conservative Guns

Below is an excerpt of a recent Daily Herald article. Not surprisingly, it seems Roskam is going to stick to his conservative guns, despite the fact that he only won by the smallest of margins and the issues being voted on are all common sense solutions that are favored by over 80% of all Americans. I especially love the contrast to Republican Mark Kirk, who actually does exhibit independence. Roskam did get one thing right though, if he continues to be a rubber stamp to his party and vote more conservative than his district, there will be efforts to educate his constituents about this and to dump him in 08!


How suburban House members voted this week
BY ERIC KROL
Daily Herald
January 15, 2007

The suburbs' seven House members found different ways of fitting into their new positions during the key first week of Congress.

For freshman Republican Peter Roskam of Wheaton, it meant sticking to his conservative guns despite winning by only a narrow margin last fall.

With Democrats pushing four high-profile, populist measures, Roskam voted for one of them. He backed the implementation of the rest of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, but voted against lifting a ban on federal stem cell research funding, an increase in the minimum wage and allowing the federal government to negotiate discounts with drug companies for Medicaid.

"The freeing thing about going through a campaign is that the direct mail is going to come no matter what," Roskam said. "Vote your district, vote your conscience and stand for what you believe and articulate why you believe it, because your opponents will attack you no matter what."

Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Evanston said she wasn't surprised Roskam didn't move to the political center."This is a new direction for our country and Peter is following the old path," she said.

While Roskam kept to the philosophy he laid out in his campaign, his Republican colleague, Rep. Mark Kirk of Highland Park, moved to the center, supporting all four pieces of the Democrats' much-hyped first 100 hours push to deliver on promises the party made last fall.

"I'm an independent guy. I've always been pro-choice, pro- environment," said Kirk, who fended off a tougher-than-expected challenge last fall. "What I would hope to be is a new Republican voice that is pro-defense, pro-science, pro-economic development and a fiscal hawk."