Two years ago, a source on Capitol Hill who used to work in Representative Pete Stark's office told me a great anecdote about Representative Stark.
One day, a lobbyist from a large energy company entered the lobby of Representative Stark's office. When he heard who was in the lobby, Representative Stark yelled from another room "get the f*ck out of here!" When the lobbyist laughed a bit and didn't leave, Representative Stark came into the lobby and yelled again "no, get the f*ck out of here!" The lobbyist then left.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has picked liberal firebrand Rep. Pete Stark to replace ousted Chairman Charles Rangel on the tax-writing committee, according to a House leadership aide.
The decision was made during a Wednesday morning leadership meeting following Rangel's announcement that he would temporarily step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the aide said.
Rangel (N.Y.) had come under growing pressure in the wake of several ethics investigations, and he faced a vote Wednesday on a GOP-backed privileged resolution to force his ouster.
This good news. Rangel steps aside while facing real ethics questions, which is both the right thing to do and helps Democrats look less hypocritical about fighting corruption in D.C. Also, it puts Pete Stark, who is as uncorruptible and as solid a progressive and as anyone in Congress, in charge of the committee.
Interest groups, too, deserve opportunities to make their cases, Stark said. He singled out the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The health insurance industry, Stark predicted, would never support a Democratic health reform effort, but he said they could be easily overcome.
"They're going to be easy to roll because nobody likes insurance companies," he said.
Hmm. That one didn't quite work out.
As you might have noticed lately, I am big on accountability, learning from our mistakes, and improving tactics. What is interesting to me about health care reform in the case of insurance companies is whether the game was fixed, or an opportunity was missed.
On the one hand, you could make the game was fixed argument that insurance companies are more moneyed and powerful, have more lobbyists and connections, etc. I've also heard the campaign finance argument, which is we'll never achieve fundamental reform not just on health care but on lots of other issues until we have fundamental campaign finance and lobbying reform to establish public financing of elections, eliminate the revolving doors between members of Congress and K Street, and so forth. Therefore Pete Stark is wrong that they could be easily overcome because he forgets that issue.
On the other hand, I recall that when Obama gave his late October radio address ripping insurance companies, the first thought in my head was "it's about time". Other friends said that with his cutting of all these side deals with pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, insurance companies to find cost savings, he in turn agreed to shy away from such rhetoric, which was a mistake. Therefore Pete Stark was right that insurance companies are easy to demonize, it's just that our side never took advantage of it.
I tend to think it's actually something of both, but it's worth thinking about for future fights.
Interest groups, too, deserve opportunities to make their cases, Stark said. He singled out the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The health insurance industry, Stark predicted, would never support a Democratic health reform effort, but he said they could be easily overcome.
"They're going to be easy to roll because nobody likes insurance companies," he said.
The House is actually going to be the place to make sure that the left has some representation.
There's a widespread debate in media circles about how often to use anonymous sources, and I understand why it is sometimes necessary. That said, the practice is now so commonly abused that many journalists feel no compunction whatsoever in passing off anonymous rumors as credible news. Take this 'article' by Peter Cohn of CongressDaily, which purports to be about a possible successor to Charlie Rangel on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, but quickly devolves into a gossip-y and entirely anonymous set of industry lobbyists unaccountably sniping at the progressive Democrat next in line for the job, Pete Stark.
It starts with an anonymous Republican lobbyist - who has no vote in Congress - discussing elected official Charlie Rangel.
"He's a long way from going down," said a GOP tax lobbyist.
Then an anonymous Democrat - aide, member, lobbyist, someone - goes on to attack Stark. Apparently they are close to leadership, which rules out, well, perhaps Dennis Kucinich.
"The conventional wisdom is he would have a tough time getting elected chairman," said a Democrat close to leadership.
Then it moves to a nice claim by 'sources' that Stark is prone to 'gaffes', ie. statements that make people in DC uncomfortable.
From suggesting Republicans were sending troops to Iraq to die "for the president's amusement" to referring to a former GOP lawmaker as a "little fruitcake," Stark is prone to gaffes, sources said.
Of course, anonymous industry lobbyists must have their say, and the anonymous business community registers its firm disapproval.
"The guy behind [Rangel] is just not tenable. Republicans would have a field day," an industry lobbyist said, while noting the business community would "go nuclear. It would just be open warfare."
What I'm learning is that Republican opposition is hardening to anything but a clean bill, and the Blue Dogs are the swing bloc around this deal. As usual.
Here's a Dear Colleague letter from Congressman Pete Stark:
Dear Colleague:
Many years ago, I was the Chief Executive Officer of a retail California bank, with assets approaching a billion dollars. I feel compelled to comment on the part of our financial system upon which ninety percent of our business and individual constituents rely.
The independent community of savings banks and credit unions are safe, sound, and liquid.
Yes, they may be suffering from higher delinquencies due to local economic problems - unemployment, lower home prices, natural disasters, etc. - but that, for the majority, results in lower profits, slower growth, and higher credit standards for potential borrowers.
For those of us who believe in a market economy, those results should come as no surprise. It should also come without question that the proposed bailout will only help reckless speculators who have been caught on the wrong side of the come line.
Yesterday, a colleague said that he was worried that banks had to pay close to six percent for "Fed funds" (day loans between banks, usually available at one to two percent, to adjust cash requirements.) Well, dear colleague, Duh! Whilst one bank paid six percent, another bank earned six percent.
Another colleague attributed to Secretary Paulson a comment to the effect that absent his bailout, folks wouldn't be able to get cash at ATMs. That is irresponsible rumor mongering hogwash.
Please, friends, whatever you decide about the "bailout," (and I intend to ignore/oppose it in any of the forms suggested thus far) I ask you not to create fear and incite the public to unwarranted hysteria, which actually could hurt the economy.
Jeb Bradley is slightly ahead of Carol Shea Porter in NH-02. This is a progressive seat, and it would be too bad to lose it, though I'm less enthralled ever since she voted for the FISA compromise.
Bill Clinton continues to praise McCain. The Clinton's are obviously split; they are helping Obama, but want Obama to lose so that she can run again in 2012. People are already informally lining up behind her in case Obama loses. Pathetic.
"I want to apologize to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended," Stark began. He then apologized to "the president and his family" and "the troops."
"I hope that with this apology, I return to being as insignificant as I should be," he concluded though a voice cracking with emotion.
We aren't ending the war, but at least we are forcing those who oppose it to apologize to Bush and other members of Congress. Can't you just picture Stark being held down by Republicans and Bush Dog freshman in Congress, telling him to stop hitting himself?
Known as the Old Professor, Stengel became a favorite of the fans for his colorful language, called "Stengelese," and his sense of humor. His colorful remarks include his famous lament to the unsuccessful 1962 Mets: "Can't anybody here play this game?"
The Democratic Party is like the 1962 New York Mets. Winning is not an option. Facing the worst, and most unpopular President of all time (save only Nixon as he circled the drain), with as many crimes as failures, all the Democrats can seem to do is find more ways to prop him up, and continue his failed policies.
Not only that, but facing political opponents who have built their entire movement on mass and individual character assasination, they have repeatedly turned on each other and their allies when Republicans have taunted them to do so in periodic hissy-fits of manufactured outrage.
This is not simply a matter of adding insult to injury. These attacks on our own most commonly come at opportune times when we should be focusing all our fire on the Republicans. And the person or group that's attacked is invariably someone who's advancing the argument into enemy territory. Rather than supporting them in putting the enemy on the defensive, Democrats turn on them, and support Republican counter-attacks.
The latest example is Pete Stark attacking the GOP for opposing SCHIP. Before that it was Moveon.org for criticizing His Holiness General Petraeus, using language his colleagues and troops had used for years. Back in 2006, there was Kerry flubbing a joke about Bush's inept leadership in sending troops to Iraq. (Bush, of course, never mis-speaks.) In 2005, Senator Durbin was attacked for comparing Guantanamo to Nazi or Soviet prison camps. And in 2004, there was Edwards daring to mention that Cheney's daughter was gay--which was appreciated--followed by Kerry mentioning it, which was attacked. And, of course, there was also Moveon.org letting someone's proposed ad comparing Bush to Hitler on their site. These are just a few of the examples that come readily to mind.
All these cases can be likened to a leadoff hitter getting to second base, perhaps a bit recklessly, and then, instead of the team bringing him home with a cleanup hitter, they join the other side in arguing with the umpire that he was out, since he didn't tag first base.
With the runner declared out, the pressure is off, and no one's under the spotlight to bring him home. Which is good. Because we have no cleanup hitters. We have no front office, either. So there's no one to sign them. No scouts, so there's no one looking for them. No manager, and no batting coaches to bring them along. All we've got is a third base couch, and he's Bob Shrum, whose only job to wave runners off of running home--even when the bases are loaded on a 3-2 count.
But the problem, we are told, is that damn Pete Stark. That damn Moveon.org. That damn Dick Durbin. What were they thinking?
I read an incredible book about the broken political process in the early 1990s called The Lobbyists, and one of the key moments was when Pete Stark dressed down in a withering nasty tone a bunch of corrupt Democratic lobbyists for pushing an unnecessary tax credit in contrast to most excessively jubilant pathetic members of Congress, both conservative and liberal, willing to do whatever these lobbyists wanted. Stark has always been willing to break the code of the Village in DC. He was the first member to admit he's an atheist, and he has never stood for Republican nonsense.
Apparently, Democrats dissented vociferously when Thomas sought unanimous consent on a surprise 90-page substitute bill that had been dispatched late the night before. Feeling cheated, Democrats demanded more time to peruse the freshly edited document, and justifiably so. Out of fairness and bipartisan respect, all committee members should have a fair crack at any legislation before it hits the floor. Nevertheless, bickering ensued.
Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., told Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark, D-Calif., to "shut up," during the meeting, upon which Stark called McInnis a "little wimp."
"Come on, come over here and make me, I dare you," Stark continued. "You little fruitcake. You little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake."
Stark is tough, passionate, and liberal, which in DC is a no-no. And then of course there was this.
"I commend MoveOn for their ad and for speaking truth to power," said Stark. "Up is not down, the earth is not flat, and the surge is not working. General Petreaus betrayed his own reputation by standing with George Bush in opposition to the timely withdrawal of all of our brave men and women from Iraq. I thank MoveOn for their patriotic ad and call on Petreaus to help Bush end a war the President should have never started."
Stark is an air force veteran, a founder of the Progressive Caucus, and won his seat in a primary in 1972 over a ten-term incumbent. That's my kind of Democrat.
Apparently chatter in leadership all day yesterday was about Pete Stark's comments on the floor. Now Pelosi and Hoyer are condemning him, and Republicans might introduce a resolution on Monday. I feel kind of bad for all the staffers in the House who really have no choice but to live with how unbelievably stupid their bosses are.
Can't Pelosi and Hoyer start an anonymous blog together so they can diss their allies the way normal concern trolls do it? I guess I'll do what outsiders always do in a flame war. I condemn you both, Pelosi and Hoyer!
"I commend MoveOn for their ad and for speaking truth to power," said Stark. "Up is not down, the earth is not flat, and the surge is not working. General Petreaus betrayed his own reputation by standing with George Bush in opposition to the timely withdrawal of all of our brave men and women from Iraq. I thank MoveOn for their patriotic ad and call on Petreaus to help Bush end a war the President should have never started."
Democrats opposed to the war held their tongues about Baird last week. But on Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., told Congressional Quarterly: "I'll give Brian a gun and let him go to Iraq and shoot whoever he wants."
When asked about Stark's comment, Baird said, "What was that all about?"
Democratic colleagues attacking Baird personally in his local press market is real progress. And then there's this.
Meantime, Baird has so many requests for interviews that he already has offered a two-hour media availability Monday, after Petraeus and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, testify before the House.
STATE BLOGS
