Cong. Jan Schakowsky: Just full of it
Marathon Pundit's rep in Congress is Jan Schakowsky of Evanston, IL. She's a
hard-left liberal, and here once again is the write-up on Jan from FrontPage Magazine's Discover the Network.
A week before Thanksgiving, this press release came out of Schakowsky's Washington office:
SCHAKOWSKY COMMENDS CONGRESSMAN MURTHA FOR HIS CALL TO WITHDRAW AMERICAN TROOPS FROM IRAQ
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a founding member of the Out-of-Iraq Caucus, today released a statement commending Congressman John Murtha's call for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
Representative Schakowsky's full statement is below:
"Today, Congressman John Murtha, a decorated war veteran and national leader on defense, called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Congressman Murtha's principled stand is a breakthrough moment in the effort to bring our troops home. A majority of Democrats in the House voted against this disastrous war, but now, those who supported it agree that the situation on the ground is untenable, that the Administration has mishandled the war, and that our troops deserve better than to be left in Iraq indefinitely."
"Last month, we lost our 2,000th American soldier in Iraq. The situation is getting worse and less stable. The Bush administration has left our men and women in harm's way with no exit strategy and no way out. It is time to bring them home."
"I commend Congressman Murtha for his leadership."
Well, earlier this month Jan had her biq chance on the floor of the House to vote to bring our troops home from Iraq. And you know what? She voted to keep the troops there.
Murtha, Jan's new hero, voted the same way. Murtha says he wants the troops to leave Iraq, but in six months.
Schakowsky wanted the troops to leave Iraq after the January elections there. From Buzzflash, quoting Jan:
"A political process has begun, admittedly fragile, and it is time for the United States to leave. Once the January 30 elections are concluded, the new Iraqi government takes responsibility for forging its own path toward stability and democracy. The U.S. should provide financial and material assistance for that effort and encourage the international community to help."
Just full of it.
Oh, Jan is by no measure a screaming lib backbencher. She's in contention to become vice chair of the house caucus, the Democrats' fourth-ranking member in the lower chamber.
17 comments:
I thought this was supposed to be a state and local politics blog. How does this fit into the format?
From the posting guidelines:
"There are a ton of national blogs, so let's keep this state and local only please. "
Yeah, the Dems should have just boycotted that vote that was a political ploy by the GOP.
Tell that to the guys from Illinois over in Iraq. If we're right we stay till we finish. If we're wrong, the troops should come home. But this let's draw the line at six months is a real armadillo position.
Well, she is a member of the Illinois congressional delegation, CG. It fits. More than that Wal-Mart post down below this one.
Pull that one, too?
The bill actually said, "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Neither John Murtha nor Cong. Schakowsky ever said that they supported an immediate pull out from Iraq.
So they didn't fall for the trap vote the Republicans threw onto the House floor...
Whoop-dee-doo.
Nobody took that vote seriously because the House leadership didn't want a serious vote. They could have put Rep. Murtha's amendment up for a vote, but instead they tossed out garbage calling for an immediate pull-out (non-binding of course).
Many people want the war to end as soon as possible... but in a way that does not cause an even bloodier civil war that could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis.
It isn't hypocritical, it is practical, responsible and moral.
Oh... and to keep this local: Go Bears!
Uh...did you read my prior comment. Schakowsky is an ILLINOIS rep.
Sounds like you and the other poster just didn't like what I wrote. I could pick thru all of Jan's press releases, but for sure, the tone of all of her Iraq comminuques has been "out now."
And as Bill Baar mentioned, there are ILLINOIS troops serving in Iraq.
Is that Wal-Mart post still up?
the house resolution ruberry refers to was a *republican* resolution introduced by duncan hunter -- not john murtha's resolution.
i am unfamiliar with schakowsky's support for republican measures, but would think that most people realize that someone looking to join their party's leadership can hardly be expected to support resolutions offered by the leadership of the other side! that would be stupid.
plus, i would think that discussion of this particular bill would focus on why even its author (duncan hunter) voted against it! not one republican voted for this republican resolution -- what does *that* tell you? what kind of person introduces a bill that they don't support? obviously hunter isn't a very serious person, and he doesn't mind wasting congress' time on frivilous measures. it's telling that he's in the republican leadership!
but there's even more absurdity here! as a sense of the house resolution, this wasn't even a bill that would amount to anything! it would have passed no law, prompted no action, accomplished NOTHING had it passed! so one can hardly condemn schakowsky (or anyone else -- the vote was 403 to 3 in a crushing defeat of hunter's measure -- for not supporting such a frivilous effort.
of course, given ruberry'a comments, we can expect him to call for john murtha's resolution to be brought immediately to the floor! let's see if jan schakowsky will support a democratic bill that will actually do something!
right?
even had you accurately summarized jan's "tone," there is still no honest reason why someone would expect her to support a resolution offered by the republican leadership. either you are quite naive politically *or* you shouldn't be throwing stones (you know the old adage).
now i can understand why a republican would be upset with jan for not supporting a republican resolution, but one should understand that this is exactly why she wouldn't do so!
if you feel the need to express your anger at the failure of this gop resolution, one would expect you to be criticizing hastert, hyde, biggert, kirk and weller, not schakowsky, a democrat!
(btw, they are all illinois representatives, as well...)
John, you don't want to pick a fight with me -- we're colleagues now.
But since you seem out-of-touch on Wal-Mart and why it's a state and local issue, you should know that the state is considering legislation regarding "big box" stores, the city of Chicago is considering a "big box" ordinance, and a coalition led by SEIU is making Wal-Mart part of it's litmus test for the 2007 Municipal elections.
And as long as Wal-Mart continues to encourage it's underpaid employees to register for the state's Medicaid/KidCare program, Wal-Mart will be a state and local issue.
I understand you don't like Jan Schakowsky. I feel the same way about Denny Hastert. This just isn't the place for that conversation.
YDD
P.S. It's pretty cowardly to try to hide behind someone else when you're caught redhanded.
"Neither John Murtha nor Cong. Schakowsky ever said that they supported an immediate pull out from Iraq."
so-called, can't you read?
From Jan's own press release...
"Today, Congressman John Murtha, a decorated war veteran and national leader on defense, called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq."
If she was willing to back-up her own words she would have voted for the Hunter's resolution, regardless of his party. If Democrats can't muster REAL opposition, how can they ever expect to win back a majority?
ILvoter tries a little bait and switch here! he notes (accurately) that murtha called for an immediate withdrawal from iraq. no proof, of course, is offered that this is schakowsky's current (or previous) position! schakowsky clearly sees murtha's heroism in making such a stance, especially given how much respect both republicans and democrats have for murtha on military affairs issues. but, outside her "tone," we are left in the dark as to schakowsky's actual position (which is instructive).
of course, republicans are free to call for murtha's resolution to be brought to the floor and voted on. that would certainly clarify things!
the republican resolution wasn't even a fair, let alone accurate, reading of what john murtha called for. the gop leadership resolution was frivilous, and was given the treatment it deserved -- indignation and dismissal by the *entire* congress. why should anyone support something that its author and sponsor refuses to support?
finally, ILvoter makes an emotional leap that simply cannot be supported by the facts. "If she was willing to back-up her own words she would have voted for the Hunter's resolution, regardless of his party."
what part of the evidence did you miss here? that she was running for a democratic leadership position? or that, according to ruberry's own source (Discover the Network), that she never votes with republicans? it would be hypocritical for schakowsky to have voted for a republican leadership resolution -- not to mention deadly to her own ambitions for a leadership position. the one conclusion that we can draw from this episode is that schakowsky is not a hypocrite! looks like she's pretty smart, too!
it does appear, though, that ILvoter and john ruberry are just too idealistic in their expectations that jan would be supporting gop leadership resolutions.
perhaps hunter's resolution did pull the wool over republican's eyes, but it should be evident that democrats didn't fall for that stunt. democrats are smarter than that...
>I have stated this on other blogs in the past, but it bears repeating; all the posturing by my sorry excuse for a Representative in Congress (Schakowsky) may soon be moot. Let us not forget that her husband Bob Creamer, having pled guilty in federal court to check kiting charges arising out of his actions as head of Citizen Action, is scheduled to be sentenced on December 21, two days after the filing dealine for Congress and other offices here in Illinois.
>Does Creamer stand mute and take a maximum sentence for his failure to be cooperative? Or does he sing like a canary on those who helped him along in his various shady dealings? If Creamer opts for choice number 2, he will almost have to tie in Schakowsky to his mess, since among other things she was a board member of Citizen Action.
>A smart Democrat who has Congressional aspirations might want to circulate petitions in the Ninth District, just in case.
>RANDALL SHERMAN
>Secretary/Treasurer, Illinois Committee for Honest Government
>Chicago
Bored,
Thanks for clearing that up. I assumed from Jan's press release that she agreed with Murtha and had the courage to at least take a position. Upon closer inspection its clear that Jan is like most other Washington Democrats when it comes to Iraq. They don't like whats happening there now, but they have no position or plan on how to deal with the situation going forward. So the public has the option of the Republican "stay the course" strategy or the Democratic non-strategy void. These are NOT good choices. How can Jan be considered for a leadership position when she has offered no leadership or vision on the most important issue facing the country?
i would agree that there are no good choices. but i would disagree that the president or republicans have a strategy wrt iraq (clear, hold and build are tactics, not a strategy).
while this isn't the place for discussing iraq, i think you have a valid point about democrats. what bothers most democrats in congress, i think, is that they see no way forward until the president has admitted mistakes and takes (personal) responsibility for them. only then, i'd imagine, will most democrats be willing to share the heavy lifting that results from the iraqi fiasco...
Sorry Jan supporters (but fellow Illinoize colleagues)
From January 26, 2005.
Woolsey Calls for Hearings: Support Troops by Bringing Them Home
WASHINGTON -- February 9 -- U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today called for the House International Relations Committee to have hearings on her resolution, H.Con.Res. 35, for President Bush to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Rep. Woolsey led 27
It goes on...
"It's time for the U.S. to be Iraq's ally and partner, not its occupier. It's time to give Iraq back to its own people. And it's time to truly support our troops - by bringing them home."
Supporting Woolsey's resolution, H.Con.Res. 35, are: U.S. Representatives Xavier Becerra, John Conyers, Danny Davis, Lane Evans, Sam Farr, Raul Grijalva, Maurice Hinchey, Michael Honda, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dennis Kucinich, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, Gwen Moore, Grace Napolitano, Major Owens, Ed Pastor, Donald Payne, Charlie Rangel, Jan Schakowsky, Jose Serrano, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, and Diane Watson.
http://www.vu.union.edu/~coulombj/Articles/MID-EAST%20AFFAIRS/IRAQ/Woolsey%20Calls%20for%20Hearings%20-%20Support%20Troops%20by%20Bringing%20Them%20Home/
Post a Comment