Who's the Bully Now?

If you aren't paying close attention, you may miss the significance of this obscure Associated Press article. 

WASHINGTON - It took a special House committee more than a year of investigating, at a cost of $500,000, to validate GOP claims that majority Democrats made the wrong call on a contested vote one late night in the summer of 2007. The dispute fed into the highly partisan atmosphere on Capitol Hill that continues to this day. "One fact is indisputable," according to the report Thursday by the six-member bipartisan panel. The final vote was "incorrect.

The incident to which the article refers is this maelstrom that caused the US House of Representatives to devolve into chaos just over a year ago. What the article doesn't mention is that the meltdown revolved around the vote of one Congressman--Harry Mitchell.

I wrote about the original incident here.  Here's the incredible video.

It is indeed chaotic, so let me explain what's happening.  Congress is debating the Agriculture bill and Republicans are trying to amend the bill to ensure that none of the funds are channeled to illegal aliens.  When it's clear that the amendment is going to lose, Mitchell and another vulnerable Democrat, Nick Lampson of Texas, vote with the Republicans for political cover.  But the Democratic floor leader loses track of the vote count and the Republican amendment wins.  Democratic leadership, in clear violation of the rules, re-opens the vote and lets Lampson and Mitchell change their votes.  The video makes it clear that Mitchell is the last one to switch and it is his vote that defeats the amendment. 

Now that a bipartisan commission has spent $500,000 and one year investigating the event and concluded the maneuver was indisputably incorrect, I think there are three lessons that we can learn from Congressman Mitchell's pivotal role in the meltdown.

The first lesson the incident demonstrates is that the image that Mitchell has crafted as the avuncular former teacher, "Frank Capra goes to Washington" is bunk.  Mitchell was the key vote in the biggest partisan dirty trick of the last Congress.  This was the only incident that rose to the level of investigation and even the Democrats concede that they crossed the line.  Mitchell cast the deciding vote in the partisan meltdown. 

Second, the incident provides a graphic demonstration that Mitchell is manipulating his voting record in order to hide the fact that he is voting lock step with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership. 

The Washington Post has reported that vulnerable Democrats--including Mitchell--routinely vote no on procedural matters in order to look independent.  Mitchell, for example voted "Nay" on 61% of the votes to approve the Daily Journal.  This tactic is gutless and unprofessional.

Finally, the incident demonstrates that when the chips are down, Mitchell will sacrifice the voters of his district in order to empower Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.  This vote was an amendment to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving benefits from the Farm Bill.  The amendment is similar to Proposition 300 which was approved by Arizonans in the same election that brought Mitchell to office.  There's no breakdown by congressional district, but the proposition passed with 73% of the vote in Maricopa county.  Mitchell is clearly way out of step on this issue.

So one incident destroys three carefully crafted myths.  Mitchell is not the Capraesque former teacher who sets aside partisan politics in order to represent the interests of his district independently of the Democratic leadership. 

Mitchell is actually a hardcore partisan who votes with the Republicans on procedural issues in order to hide his total devotion to Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.  And when forced to chose between his constituents and that leadership, chooses Pelosi every time.

Not that you will ever read that in the Mainstream Media.

Comments

[The Klute]

"Mitchell is actually a hardcore partisan who votes with the Republicans on procedural issues in order to hide his total devotion to Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership. And when forced to chose between his constituents and that leadership, chooses Pelosi every time."

Or, you know, he chooses to vote for the constituency who voted him into office... I know its hard to accept, but there are Democrats (and gasp! Liberals!) in CD-5.

[Walter]

Klute,

The constituency that voted for Mitchell were promised (by Mitchell) the following:

1. Balanced budget
2. Lower gas prices
3. Secure Border
4. nonpartisan/bipartisan approach

The record shows an 0-4. All by strikeout. All without swinging the bat.

[The Klute]

And the voters are free to put Schwiekert in there if they feel he has reneged on those promises.

[Dewey]

I would really like to know why Rep. Mitchell has such low confidence in the daily journal that he opposes its approval a majority of the time. Are the folks running the Congressional Record so incompetent that they can't get it right even half of the time? It seems that a member whose leader promised "the most honest, the most open, and the most ethical Congress in history" should be outraged at this gross incompetence on the part of the Congressional Record. If ever there was a cause for an investigation, this must surely be it! The staff putting out this fiasco of a Daily Digest should most definitely be fired.

Could one of you objective watchdogs at the Republic or Tribune who protect the interests of the voiceless, common taxpayer (like me) please follow this up? Thanks much.

[azslim]

Gee Klute, your responses here were pretty weak, especially for you. You haven't even addressed the main point of Greg's blog: that Congressman Mitchell is part of the problem in Washington, not an independent golden boy who marches to the beat of his own drummer. He's a partisan hack like 99 percent of all congressmen. The fundamental dishonesty being perpetrated here is that Mitchell pretends he isn't so partisan. And now we have a bipartisan commission essentially agreeing with Greg's point. We'll see if, in the end, this matter to the voters of District 5 or not.

[The Klute]

AZSlim,

And if I was hoping he'd be a non-partisan representative, I'd be upset.

If anything, I'm upset where Harry has compromised (off-shore drilling being the biggest rub against my rhubarb)... But he'll still get my vote because his presence helps keep my party in power (and he does vote the right way on other issues) and thus setting the agenda. And at least I've got more of an ear than I did with Hayworth or would have with Schweikert.

"We'll see if, in the end, this matter to the voters of District 5 or not."

Ulimtately, I don't think it will. CD-5s trending purple - I both work and live in North Scottsdale, and unscientifically, of course, the conservative to "liberal" ratio is about 1.5 to 1 - and Schweikert needs a big win here to counter-balance Tempe - which ain't going to happen. Using Greg's Manross-Lane model for Scottsdale - Lane barely won North Scottsdale, Manross crushed him in Central, and Manross lost South because of lingering bitterness about the strip club ban fiasco. If Lane couldn't crush Manross in the North on a pretty much Republican ballot - how does he expect to crush her when Democrats actually show up? And using that - how will Schweikert be able to get a 2 or 3 to 1 advantage over Mitchell that he needs in Scottsdale when Democrats show up?

[Donna]

Klute, I was privy to some internal polls in CD5 back in 2006. Something that frustrates so many progressives here is that Harry isn't anti-war enough. I point out to them that the Iraq War was way down in the priorities of voters in this district. Stem cell research was a way bigger issue, with the preponderence of voters being on the PRO side of it. That's why Michael J. Fox made an appearance here.

Schweikert is running as a mega-social conservative, to his folly. CD5 is arguably the most professional and educated demographic in the state. Mitchell will continue to appeal to the moderate Republican women more than his reactionary opponent.

[Commander In Chief]

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Nothing, indeed, at all. Harry Mitchell is a hardcore partisan. There was something "softcore" about JD Hayworth? Hayworth wasn't an extreme partisan committed to the Newt Gingrich/George Bush agenda?
Elections have consequences. The 2006 midterm election was a bitterly partisan one, and one party won and one party lost, badly. Live with it. It'll probably only get worse for the losing side this year.
If your whining about the fact that Mitchell made himself appear more "moderate" and "bipartisan" during his campaign than he appears now, get over it. Hayworth ran ads in years past that made him look like a liberal Democrat. Lots of politicians campaign this way. Remember George W. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" Bush? Remember he campaigned as a moderate in 2000? Have we ever had a more divisive, hardcore partisan president?
Whatever happened to the "rematch" between Mitchell and Hayworth, which Greg was sure Hayworth would win?
Schweikert will be lucky to keep his margin of defeat in single digits.

[Dave]

While the Mitchell vote was on a much more important stage, it seems eerily like the floor debate drama that played out in the Arizona State Senate, created by Senator Harper et al.

[Patrick]

Consider Commander the final word anyone needs to know about this subject. Owned.

[Sam]

"and one party won and one party lost, badly. Live with it."

This coming from a party that can't get over an election in 2000 or 2004.

271-266 (7-2, 5-4)
286-252

Live with it.

[Bix2012]

"Mitchell is not the Capraesque former teacher who sets aside partisan politics in order to represent the interests of his district independently of the Democratic leadership."

Geez, that's a tragedy--and considering that Harry is virtually swimming in a sea of those that have embraced that Capra-esque code of conduct makes it especially difficult to deal with--I shudder to think that be-devil'd ol'Mitchell is playing at his dirty politiks right there amidst all those unblemished and virtuous Republican angels.

I pray Saint Tricky Dick is watching over their blessed innocence....

A sad day in Washington, certes.

[The Klute]

Bix2012,

To quote Buffy Summers, at this point, you're just abusing sarcasm. :)

[Jim Torgeson]

It is so unfortunate that the Democratic Party has run so far to the left that they are below the horizon.

Deceitful practices make you wonder who you are really voting for. I so wanted Harry to be the real deal.

Another hope dashed to the concrete.

I at least want to know who I am voting for and I obviously don't know Harry.