Politics Plus

Many hope that during the lame duck session of Congress, we can accomplish some of the things that America needs.  It is historically a good time to take up controversial issues, because it is the furthest gap there is until the next election, but not if Republicans have their way.

Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., won his last election on Nov. 3, 1998. Not enough of his fellow Republicans came with him. Gingrich’s party lost five seats in the House of Representatives after a year exploring impeachment charges against President Bill Clinton. Gingrich, who was House speaker, acknowledged the unexpected setback by announcing his resignation. His final act of power was to call a lame-duck session of Congress to deal with the impeachment.

Democrats were horrified and helpless. As far as they were concerned, the election had been a referendum on impeachment, and the Republicans had lost it. Republicans who were retiring or being replaced by Democrats were going to provide votes for impeachment that wouldn’t be there when the new, Gingrich-free Congress took over in January. "Listen to the American people," said Democratic investigative counsel Abbe Lowell, one of many members of his party who spent weeks wringing hands, pointing at polls, and watching the impeachment train chug along.

One week before Christmas the majority party held votes on four articles of impeachment, passing two of them. Gingrich cast his final votes in the House for all four articles. Two weeks later, he departed.

This is well-remembered Washington history, and it wraps plenty of yellow "CAUTION" tape around Gingrich’s newest cause. His latest petition [Newt delinked]—a sequel and supplement to campaigns by the Tea Party groups FreedomWorks [Tebaggers delinked] and Americans for Prosperity [Teabaggers delinked]—asks conservatives to send the following pledge to their members of Congress.

I, undersigned Member of the 111th Congress, pledge to the citizens of the State of _____________ I will not participate in a Lame Duck session of Congress. I believe reconvening the Congress after the November 2nd election and prior to the seating of the new 112th Congress, smacks of the worst kind of political corruption. Attempting to pass unpopular legislation subverts the will of the American people and is an abusive power grab.

Twelve years after leaving office, Gingrich sounds like the Democrats who wondered why defeated Republicans like New Jersey’s Mike Pappas and Mississippi’s Mike Parker were allowed to impeach Bill Clinton, when their Democratic successors won by promising not to. Gingrich’s spokesman Tim Cameron told me that the situations are not really comparable… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Slate Magazine>

Frankly we need all the time we can get, because Republicans have done nothing but obstruct for the last two years.  If Republicans choose not to attend, so much the better.  Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Every Republican in office is one Republican too many!

Interns of RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, have been emailing foreign embassies trying to sat up appointments for Steele with the Ambassadors.  On the surface, this appears to be another bonehead move.  Is it, or is Steele up to something?

The Republican National Committee is trying to set up meetings between Chairman Michael Steele and foreign ambassadors to the United States, according to an e-mail obtained by POLITICO — an effort that has puzzled diplomats as well as fellow Republicans.

An RNC intern sent a message late last month to at least one ambassador on behalf of Neil Alpert, a senior finance aide, with little explanation.

“As you know, the November election is just 103 days away and the chairman would like to extend to you an invitation to sit down either at the RNC or at your embassy to discuss the upcoming 2010 midterm elections,” wrote Christopher Kelleher, a finance department intern. “With literally hundreds of congressional seats up for grabs in just under four months, Chairman Steel [sic] would love to have the opportunity to discuss the party’s outlook with you.”

RNC spokesman Doug Heye declined to comment on why Steele would want to set up individual meetings with the foreign diplomats, whether he’s had any meetings with them, and if he would continue to pursue such get-togethers.

“In his role as RNC chairman, he meets with leaders in Washington and throughout the country,” Heye said.

But one European embassy official told POLITICO his embassy had received the generic-sounding message in a general inquiry in-box and indicated that he didn’t know what to make of the note.

The staffs of high-level American political figures typically go directly to an embassy’s political officer to set up meetings with an ambassador.

Steele’s outreach to foreign representatives heading into the final stretch of the midterm election cycle is exasperating senior Republicans, already fed up with the controversial chairman’s knack for bad publicity.

“They can’t give any money and they can’t vote,” former RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson said, referring to the ambassadors. “I don’t know why you’d take time to do it.”

It is illegal for foreign nationals to contribute to American candidates or political parties… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Politico>

On first read, I found this quite puzzling.  Sure, Steele is notorious for idiocy, but this one seemed without purpose.  So I asked myself, what does the RNC want?  The answer is obvious: the $ame thing the RNC alway$ want$.  But foreign nationals can’t contribute.  Then it hit me! :idea:  Thanks to Citizens United, foreign corporations can buy advertising and can even do so anonymously.  There is nothing to stop a foreign government from subsidizing a foreign corporation’s ad campaign.  Steele and the Republicans want to sell out to foreign governments through their corporations.