In this post I published an open letter to my own Congressman, Jay Inslee, asking him why he thought that the Democratic House leader, Nancy Pelosi, was fit to be speaker, and possibly president. After three weeks, not having received a reply, I wrote this follow-up post, giving more reasons to doubt Congresswoman Pelosi's fitness for either job.
Shortly after that post appeared, I finally received a reply from Congressman Inslee. Here's my original question:
What, in your opinion, makes Congresswoman Pelosi fit to be speaker, and possibly president?
And here's what Congressman Inslee (or, more likely, one of his staffers) wrote in reply:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about members of the House leadership. I appreciate hearing from you.
I applaud your interest in federal issues and will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. It is great that we have people in this country who are so actively engaged in helping make public policy.
He then continued with a laundry list of what he considers his own accomplishments in Congress.
He did not mention Pelosi by name anywhere in the entire reply. From this incident, I draw the following conclusion: It may be possible to argue that Congresswoman Pelosi is fit to be speaker, and perhaps president, but it is not easy. But the House Democratic caucus picked Pelosi for their leader anyway.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(If you would like to know more about Pelosi, let me recommend these two posts, one describing her district, and the other describing her machine politics background.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 11, 2006 09:41 AM | Email ThisThe job description does not include answering inane argumentative queries, irrespective of whether come from constitutents.
I would be rather irritated, in fact, if my representative or his staff were wasting their time engaging in such sophomoric partisan jousting.
How do those chains feel Jim?
Posted by: Jericho on June 11, 2006 12:39 PMCommutations
1. Benjamin Berger - convicted of conspiracy, embezzlement, and wire fraud and mail fraud
2. Ronald Henderson Blackley
3. Bert Wayne Bolan
4. Gloria Libia Camargo
5. Charles F. Campbell
6. David Ronald Chandler
7. Lau Ching Chin
8. Donald R. Clark
9. Loreta De-Ann Coffman
10. Derrick Curry
11. Velinda Desalus
12. Jacob Elbaum
13. Linda Sue Evans
14. Loretta Sharon Fish
15. Antoinette M. Frink
16. David Goldstein
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton
Posted by: pbj on June 11, 2006 01:24 PMSource: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/190239.shtml
NEW YORK (UPI) � The U.S. attorney's probe of the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich has expanded to the four presidential pardons of four Jewish men convicted of stealing $40 million from taxpayers for a fake school.
Mary Jo White, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, is investigating a possible link between the last-minute pardon by former President Bill Clinton of four New Yorkers and votes for Hillary Clinton's Senate election last November.
Kalmen Stern, David Goldstein, Benjamin Berger and Jacob Elbaum were serving prison sentences of up to 6.5 years for bilking $40 million worth of student Pell grants and loans from government sources for a phony school in the Hasidic community of New Square, N.Y.
Sen. Clinton said that although she attended a White House meeting in which the pardon issue was raised, "I never made any view known."
Last month, she refused to talk about the controversial pardons of the four New York Hasidic Jews by her husband.
Of course, since liberals automaticaly dismiss NewsMax, here it is from the gray lady herself (That is code for the New York Time for those libs too high on drugs to understand):
4 Who Got Leniency Defrauded U.S. for Religion
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Source:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E17FB3F5B0C758EDDA80894D9404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Hillary%20Rodham
Four men who had sentences commuted by Pres Bill Clinton in his final days in office had conspired to defraud government out of funds in form of Pell Grants for indigent students at Brooklyn seminary; in truth, there was no school and there were no students, and money went to seven men and religious community of New Square, in Rockland County, NY; four who had sentences commuted are Kalman Stern, David Goldstein, Jacob Elbaum, and Benjamin Berger; Chaim Berger is fighting extradition in Israel and whereabouts of two others, Nathan Adler and Avrum David Friesel, is unknown; critics of commutation say it was politically motivated to benefit Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had courted support in Hasidic community during her Senate campaign
Posted by: pbj on June 11, 2006 01:32 PMWe do know that he came to the area from the east coast, so could it be the same guy? Could our very own David Goldstein be a Clinton Admin flunkie ex-con fleeing bad east Coast press?
Posted by: pbj on June 11, 2006 01:39 PM
Right you are, Jim! That would be the unsubtantiated wingnut mud-slinging post; one should be coming up soon.
This thread is reserved for congressional heckling via silly hypothetical questions.
BTW, I'm looking forward to reading Dave Reichert's analysis of Denny Hastert's qualifications for the same position. How does he feel about Hastert's lack of executive experience, something you feel is crucial for this role?
scottd, why not ask Rep Reichert yourself? I know that I emailed him some time ago expressing my displeasure on some of his votes. It took a few weeks before I got my auto reply saying something like, "thank you for your interest in federal issues. blah, blah, blah." The response Jim got from Rep Inslee is not surprising. My guess is that unless you're a big donor, you won't get a personal reply, even from a staffer.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on June 11, 2006 04:07 PMI thought the answer to that would be clear from the context of my comment. I assume that Reichert and his staff have better things to do with their time than respond to silly flamebait questions. Inslee apparently does, so kudos to him.
Jim apparently doesn't understand this -- he seems to think it is significant that Inslee doesn't care to speculate on Nancy Pelosi's qualifications to be president.
Posted by: scottd on June 11, 2006 04:31 PMI never said I could. Are you saying you can prove isn't? What do you know about Goldstein? What do any of us know about him? Does anyone have a biography of him?
Posted by: pbjisn't on June 11, 2006 04:44 PMSuch as: Why does Dave Reichert hate stem cell research?
[http://www.house.gov/reichert/press.05/5.24.05.stem.shtml]
Since I'm sure Dave is terribly busy preparing for his MASSIVE FUNDRAISING visit from G.W. BUSH[1], perhaps some of the regular crew here can answer on Dave's behalf.
[1] BTW, Jim, how many public audiences or real questions do you expect our Beloved Leader to be fielding during his Pacific NW fund-trolling visit on behalf of Reichert?
Posted by: bartelby on June 11, 2006 04:51 PMSo you are saying you cannot prove that isn't the same Goldstein. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by: pbj on June 11, 2006 05:38 PMI'm going with the latter (although it could be both). You obviously have the skills to Google on Goldstein's name. I'd be surprised if your research didn't turn up articles like this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6b6bea461f.htm
Here we learn that the Goldstein who had his sentence commuted was 54 in Jan. 2001. That would make him at least 59 today. Our man in Seattle is in his early 40's.
So, were you too lazy to look that up yourself, or were you just hoping no one else would bother?
Posted by: scottd on June 11, 2006 06:10 PMOr asking Inslee if he's so hip on abortion rights, why we can't perform a retro-active one on bartleboob?
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 11, 2006 06:12 PMSuch as: Why does Dave Reichert hate stem cell research?
And tries to support that absrdity with the following link:
[http://www.house.gov/reichert/press.05/5.24.05.stem.shtml]
And one wonders why we call them the loony liberal left.
There is nothing in his statement that says he hates stem cell research. Because someone does not vote in the affrimative for the harvesting of human life for the purpose of research does not mean he is against research. He probalby supports ADULT stem cell research like nearly everyone does. Adult stem cell reserach actually HAS resulted in theraputic remedies while EMBRYONIC stem cells have acheived nothing.
Just another case of obfuscation and scare tactics because the truth is too damning to use.
Posted by: Eyago on June 11, 2006 06:20 PMIf only you could manage to engage real ideas and information, rather than crude ad hominem barbs, we might have something to talk about.
I suppose that's as quixotic as hoping that Stefan might swear off the wink-and-nod slurs against queers and transgendered folk whilst he maintains he's a socially tolerant laissez-faire conservative.
Posted by: bartelby on June 11, 2006 06:30 PMOr do you mean like posting off-topic three times in one post, dumba$$? Like that?
I would remind you that it is you who refer to them as "queers", not the Shark. Another fine showing of that (in)famous "liberal tolerance.
FOAD bartleboob...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 11, 2006 06:52 PMHow do you know how old he is? What proof do you have of that?
Posted by: pbj on June 11, 2006 07:27 PMGoldy's age is easy to research, he's had plenty of press lately. Here's a link to a Jan 17, 2003 story in The Olympian:
http://theolympian.com/home/specialsections/Legislature/20030117/9913.shtml
I found the link in, of all places, Goldy's blog. Excerpt from that story:
The sponsor is David Goldstein, a 39-year-old Seattle technical writer and software entrepreneur...
There are plenty of other sources for this information. Ask Sharkansky if you need more verification.
Now really, did it never occur to you that there might be more than one David Goldstein? Or, do you just habitually slime people without bothering to check things out?
Posted by: scottd on June 11, 2006 07:55 PMAfter a period of time (hopefully shorter than what Jim has gone through) we should receive responses.
It might be interesting to know which representatives respond with something more than the standard form letter.
Which ones are the most creative?
Without making large campaign donations, how does the commoner get their attention?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 11, 2006 08:37 PMOf course not, but you'd still get the chance to nail him with your carefully researched evidence. Besides, once you called him out in public, everyone would look into and you could probably get him fired. Think of the fun that would be!
BTW, check out SP's voter database. They have four David Goldsteins registered in Seattle. Do you suppose they were all pardoned by Clinton?
Posted by: scottd on June 11, 2006 09:05 PMIt is amazing what you crazy liberals will take on face value as long as someone tows the liberal line.
I still think something is suspcious.
Posted by: pbj on June 11, 2006 09:18 PMI would remind you that it is you who refer to them as "queers", not the Shark. Another fine showing of that (in)famous "liberal tolerance.
Uh, Soup, "queer" has not been a pejorative for anyone other than the knuckle-dragging set for, oh, 15 years or so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation
BTW, how many of those guys do you suppose Clinton pardoned? pbj's entire case rests on the fact that Clinton commuted the sentence of someone named David Goldstein.
Posted by: scottd on June 11, 2006 09:52 PMYou are really slow aren't you? You totally missed my point. It wasn't that Goldstein necessarily is that person (though you haven't proven he isn't), it is that we don't really know anything about him since he moved here from the East Coast (from what I recall that is where it was reported he came).
And if the information is "out there" I certainly cannot find it.
Where did he grow up? What did his parents do for a living? What highschool did he attend? What college did he attend? Why did he leave the East Coast - was he fleeing for some reason perhaps?
You do not know for a fact he is not that Goldstein or that his real name even IS Goldstein. He doesn't seem to offer up much of a bio than "I am a hell raiser".
It certainly is an odd coincidence isn't it?
Posted by: pbj on June 11, 2006 10:19 PMbartleboob needs this stunning victory - he regularly cruises SoundPolitics looking to show us "what fer" and he regularly gets his whiney butt kicked.
What a maroon!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 11, 2006 10:33 PMThank you for contacting us with your concerns about the usage of the word queer. We appreciate hearing from you.
While I applaud your keen interest in the panache of a word like queer and everything associated with queerness in general, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. It is great that we have liberal people in this country like you who are so actively engaged in helping make sure we all place trend before substance. We can forget questioning Pelosi's qualifications -- Bartleboob's punk culture is more fashionable.
Hun, are you still up? Shouldn't you be in bed hun?
Posted by: pbj on June 12, 2006 12:03 AMI don't really know what it has to do with Inslee, though. Maybe Clinton also pardoned him.
Posted by: pbj on June 12, 2006 10:22 PMAl Gore in '08!
Posted by: WJC on June 13, 2006 08:13 PM