Legislative Logrolling — Katherine Harris Given House Leadership Role
	found on Bradenton Herald written by MAYORBOB, edited by Dylan (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 6 Dec 5:59pm
		"She was just elected to Congress a bit over a month ago," gasps MAYORBOB. "She hasn't even taken her oath as a freshman U.S. Representative. But Katherine Harris has been selected to serve as an Assistant Majority Whip in the upcoming session of Congress. Ms. Harris first came to the notice of the American public during the controversy over Florida voting in the 2000 Presidential election. Then serving as Florida's Secretary of State, Harris was the official who was charged with overseeing recounts and investigations of hanging or dimpled chads on the voting cards received in a number of Florida voting districts. The outcome of the Florida vote was finally determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, but not before Harris became either the darling of the Republicans or the villain of the Democrats. It is extremely unusual for a freshman Congressperson to be selected for a leadership role; they usually end up doing their damnedest to secure a seat on a subcommittee of relevance to their constituents. A spokesperson for House Republican Whip Elect Roy Blunt from Missouri, said that Harris was chosen due to her leadership in the past, the campaign she conducted for her house seat, and her willingness to work on difficult issues. And, one would imagine that having an angel in the Oval Office didn't hurt her chances either. "

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 25 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  What's there to say?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Fri 6 Dec 6:35pm score of 3 brilliant     Katherine Harris is a savior to a certain demographic of dedicated Republican voter. To everyone else she's at best an embarrassment, at worst political corruption made flesh. The real issue for discussion is why the Republican party feels comfortable parading her so publicly in front of the entire nation. Perhaps someday this country will start to care about this sort of thing. Until that happens, Katherine Harris's actions are just the beginning of the kind of political ugliness we have to look forward to this century.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: What's there to say?   by holgate       at Fri 6 Dec 6:39pm score of 2 witty   in reply to comment 1     Katherine Harris is a savior to a certain demographic of dedicated Republican voter. Yeah: the ones who think that masturbating over pictures of Ann Coulter is just a little too creepy. Ahem.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: What's there to say?   by kallisti       at Sat 7 Dec 9:47am score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 1     The real issue for discussion is why the Republican party feels comfortable parading her so publicly in front of the entire nation. If Clinton had someone blatantly rig Florida in 1996, then the democratic house provided a cushy leadership role for a freshman (freshwoman?) - the right-wing media would have had a heyday, and Ken Starr would have been visiting. That's what's so frustrating - apparently, corruption is A-OK on the Republican side of the fence. *Sigh* I'm ceasing to admire leftists like Paul Wellstone and starting to admire leftists like Mao Zedong. Mao had a spine and a fucking army.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  More partisanship from the Republicans   by Ruckin       at Fri 6 Dec 7:55pm score of 3 astute     The Republicans' actions since Bush's inauguration have been getting more and more partisan. The Republicans are consolidating their power by giving favour to those politicians who hold the Party line above any personal opinions they might have, and is abandoning politicians like Bob Barr and John McCain who show signs of independence. Recently, the Republicans pulled all their party's veteran members off the Appropriations Committee, the most powerful committee in Congress and whose members are traditionally appointed by seniority, to replace them with party hacks chosen by Dennis Hastert. This quick promotion of Harris is not a surprise, as it follows this trend of promoting party hacks. Harris's laughably lawbreaking campaign is a textbook example of the Republican far-right's lust for power and disrespect for the law: First she fails to file for her candidacy, which for anybody other than such a politically well connected person would bar their name from the ballot. Then she keeps on in her job during the campaign even though state law requires she have resigned by July 15 to be eligible to run for Congress. When her opponent points this out in August, she issues her resignation effective July 15, claiming to have resigned the month earlier than she actually did. Immediately, Jeb Bush appoints her back to her same job, so she hasn't really resigned at all. Throughout all this time, 91,000 eligible voters throughout Florida have been stripped by Harris of their right to vote (these numbers are from the company that gave Harris the list). Somehow, there are enough anti-American morons in her district to elect her to Congress, where she can now harm the entire country instead of only one state.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Re: More partisanship from the Republicans   by rombuu       at Fri 6 Dec 10:14pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 3     The Republicans' actions since Bush's inauguration have been getting more and more partisan. A political party acting partisan. Well, I never. What's next? Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria... http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  True, true   by Ruckin       at Fri 6 Dec 10:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Although, this was an administration that promised that there would be absolutely no partisanship while they were in power. But politicians lying? Well, I never... =)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: True, true   by rombuu       at Sat 7 Dec 2:38am score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 7     Do you have a cite for that? I find it hard to belive that even Bush would say something that stupid. http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: True, true   by Gorvernaut       at Sat 7 Dec 6:21am score of 2.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 8     Do you have a cite for that? I find it hard to belive that even Bush would say something that stupid.   During the 2000 election Bush attacked Gore for being "too partisan". After Gore conceded the election, Bush promised to move his agenda forward in a "search for common ground" and to be "a uniter, not a divider". Of course, some opine that Bush had broken his promise long before Ms. Harris became vested in her deferred compensation package.   Why, rombuu, after the experience of the past two years, do you find it hard to believe that Bush would say something stupid?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: True, true   by rombuu       at Sat 7 Dec 1:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Why, rombuu, after the experience of the past two years, do you find it hard to believe that Bush would say something stupid? Oh, not really. I was just thinking if a candiate promised not to be partisan, why the hell should I vote for them in the first place? I thought the idea was to vote for someone who had an agenda you liked and wanted to get passed. Of course, none of those links indicate he ever said he wouldn't be paritsan at all... which was what the original assertation was. I just thought if he had said that I would have heard about it... http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: True, true   by Gorvernaut       at Sat 7 Dec 7:23pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 18     [N]one of those links indicate he ever said he wouldn't be paritsan [sic] at all...   First, definitional nitpicking isn't a particularly convincing way to defend against charges of broken promises or moral shortcomings. Remember Clintion's working definition of "is"?   Second, Bush did promise to move beyond partisan politics. Here are some excerpts from Bush's acceptance speech: I know America wants reconciliation and unity. I know Americans want progress. And we must seize this moment and deliver. Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy and common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens. Together, we will work to make all our public schools excellent, teaching every student of every background and every accent, so that no child is left behind. Together we will save Social Security and renew its promise of a secure retirement for generations to come. Together we will strengthen Medicare and offer prescription drug coverage to all of our seniors. Together we will give Americans the broad, fair, and fiscally responsible tax relief they deserve. Together we'll have a bipartisan foreign policy true to our values and true to our friends, and we will have a military equal to every challenge and superior to every adversary. Together we will address some of society's deepest problems one person at a time, by encouraging and empowering the good hearts and good works of the American people. This is the essence of compassionate conservatism and it will be a foundation of my administration.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  It's Payback Time   by Norman108       at Fri 6 Dec 7:59pm score of 1.5 funny     "A spokesperson for House Republican Whip Elect Roy Blunt from Missouri, said that Harris was chosen due to her leadership in the past, the campaign she conducted for her house seat, and her willingness to work on difficult issues". And while were being Mr. Blunt, we can't forget her willingness to subvert national elections, when it,s in her party's best interests, now can we? In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  I can't help believing..   by StratKat       at Fri 6 Dec 8:22pm score of 3 interesting     ....that this has less to do with Ms. Harris's "Abilities", "Leadership roles", and "Political courage", than it has to do with her GENDER. Pelosi is leading the Dems in the House and the Repubs want a Fem Figurehead for their side of the aisle. And one that will be obedient. I'm sure there's some gratitude from the White House as well to be sure, for her being a good soldier in 2000. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Isn't obedience the whole point of being the whip?   by Brian Jones       at Sat 7 Dec 8:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Looking down the list of Democratic whips, you won't find those who might jump party lines. You'll find Tom DeLay on one side, and Maxine Waters on the other. When's the last time either of them crossed over on a major issue? Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Mistake in above   by Brian Jones       at Sat 7 Dec 8:06am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 11     Edit out the word "Democratic". Duh... Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: I can't help believing..   by 0tim0       at Sat 7 Dec 11:01am score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 5     ....that this has less to do with Ms. Harris's "Abilities", "Leadership roles", and "Political courage", than it has to do with her GENDER. You say that like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with installing more women into positions of power? Clinton was lauded for this sort of thing. At the very least it should help bring awareness of women's issues into the fold of the Republican leadership. Sounds like a good thing to me. --t "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: I can't help believing..   by StratKat       at Sat 7 Dec 3:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     You say that like it's a bad thing. No I didn't. I put no connatation on it whatsoever. Don't turn my comment into something it wasn't. I.E. a swipe against women. It was not that at all. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Two observations.   by MAYORBOB       at Sat 7 Dec 7:16am score of 2 funny     1. Anyone who doesn't think that this selection wasn't mandated by the resident of an Oval Office somewhere in the vicinity of the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia is hereby dismissed to go back and finish the bong water. 2. Take a look at the picture in the linked article. Now, how many of you will admit to being more than a bit queasy at the thought of her having anything to do with whips? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Characteristic   by uncarved block       at Sat 7 Dec 9:35am score of 1.5 interesting     This kind of political move is becoming the trademark of this administration-- perhaps it's time to develop a pithy, media friendly label for it. W-jitsu? The burning Shrub? The Bush bully bash? Any other labels are welcome.       What is the move? Make a move so outrageous that your opposition is both stunned and angered to the point of incoherency, then spin that anger into the story. The far right is in control of the press, and are looking for precisely this kind of story to up their ratings. A near corrupt local official hands over power to a national campaign? No, for Fox and Rush, this was a story about a heroic individual saving the nation from a Gore presidency-- the Lautenberg case was about corrupt local officials, and any similarity marks a blemish in your own vision*.       Anyway, this isn't that atypical a move. As was pointed out up thread, party whips aren't given their positions because they'll buck the party line-- they're not lashing the opposition, after all, in their metaphorical job description. One big advantage for a whip (an party leader, really) is coming from a safe district, and as everyone noted when Harris first announced, hers is about as safe a district as you can get.       This isn't limited to the right side of the aisle, BTW-- if I recall, there was some noises after 2000 about getting Hillary Clinton into some kind of Senate leadership position. Talk about outraging conservatives . . .       Is this symbolic anyway? The article notes that this is hardly a unique position; when there are 10-12 of an office, it's a good bet that at least 2 or 3 of them are dead wood.       *It was Gore who tried to steal the election, after all, and there are even books to prove it-- written by flacks and hacks, but there nonetheless. Personally, I never liked the theft angle of the narrative-- Bush had superior local force, and he used it. Neither side was 'right', and if you want to place malfeasance somewhere, it lies firmly on the shoulders of whoever decided to call Florida for Bush in the first place. Harris shouldn't be tarred with exceptional corruption; she should be pilloried for being the rule in Florida politics. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Job Qualifications   by iarnuocon       at Sat 7 Dec 10:30am score of 1.5 compelling     She doesn't know how to follow clearly written guidelines- for example: failing to file for candidacy, failing to resign her position, etc. She subordinated the rights and interests of her constituency to her own political interests- namely disenfranchising thousands of their right to vote, failing to use her position to correct serious problems with Florida's system of voting, etc. in hopes of forwarding her own career. She has a "flexible" set of ethics that uses spin to counter reality, claiming her resignation was "retroactive" (as if such a thing were possible) or that disenfranchisement of black voters was "merely an oversight." She claims to know what's best for the voters, despite themselves- claiming that she would award Florida to Bush even before the tangled mess that she helped create was unwoven. She does what she's told. Who says she's not perfect for the position? insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Oh, come on, people   by stankow       at Sat 7 Dec 11:05am score of 3.5 scholarly     RTFA. Really. It clearly says that "Assistant Whip" doesn't mean shit. There are 40-50 of them, and contrary to the write-up, 10-12 other freshman Reps are Assistant Whips. This is a "leadership role" like Denis Lawson was one of the "stars" of the first Star Wars trilogy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Re: Oh, come on, people   by mad_clown       at Sat 7 Dec 2:07pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 17     Quiet, stankow. You're going to dampen their righteous indignation. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Oh, come on, people   by holgate       at Sat 7 Dec 7:44pm score of 1 witty   in reply to comment 17     This is a "leadership role" like Denis Lawson was one of the "stars" of the first Star Wars trilogy. Well, it may not be a 'leadership role', but essentially it's a further vote of confidence: not only does she get an uncompetitive, gerrymandered district; she also gets on the first rung of the congressional ladder. Oh, and comes first in the office ballot, as well. This in spite of the fact that she's done nothing that could be called 'competent' to deserve it. Even ignoring the fun and games over the felon voter lists, or the manipulation of the Florida count, this is a woman who had to bend the rules and back-date her own resignation. Anyway, as part of the whipping organisation, I suspect she'll find the duty of informing other members about party discipline well beyond her slender abilities. I'm sure she'll be happy to dispense blowjobs in exchange for votes, though.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  To the victor goes the spoils   by kokopelli2012       at Sun 8 Dec 6:04pm score of 1     Does this really surprise anyone.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Irony   by cy guy       at Mon 9 Dec 9:01am score of 1.5 clever     The real irony is that the chief role of party whips is to count votes. When they expect a close vote on a piece of legislation, the whip keeps track of who has committed to voting for or against it as well as trying to convince those still undecided to vote with the party leadership. "Everybody's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic."-Andy Warhol   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Not Surprised!   by walefu       at Mon 9 Dec 8:23pm score of 1     I am not surprised that Ms. Harris would be given the position of leadership. Bush is rewarding her. Hasn't Bush done already the opposite of what he says on one side of his mouth--doing the other on the other side? But beware to criticize. I think I heard on Hardball tonight Jerry Falwell--the almost reverend--say that to criticize Bush is blasphemy! I was doing something else at the time so if I misheard him, please correct me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]