-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Well. This is interesting.
As Delaware Republicans head to the polls to choose a U.S. Senate nominee between longtime liberal Republican Congressman Mike Castle and conservative activist Christine O’Donnell, there is an interesting development.
On June 10, 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a famously far-left Democrat and in 2008 a candidate for president in the Democratic primaries that included Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, introduced a typical Kucinich-style piece of legislation.
That would be H. Res. 1258.
What was House Resolution 1258 all about?
To quote directly from Thomas, the official website of the Library of Congress — which is to say the official website of record for House and Senate proceedings — H.Res. 1258 is described thusly:
H.RES.1258
Title: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
So far, so Kucinich. So Left.
Problem? About to be a huge problem for Mike Castle as voters in the Republican primary hit the polling booths?
On June 11, 2008, which is to say the very next day, there was a vote on the House floor to refer the bill to the House Judiciary Committee for action.
The vote?
Aye — 227 Democrats
Nay — 166 Republicans
Mike Castle’s sudden problem?
According to the Congressional Record, there were 24 Republican Ayes.
That’s right. 24 Republican Congressmen voted to refer a resolution of impeachment of George W, Bush to the House Judiciary Committee for action. While 166 said no.
One of the 24 who gave a thumbs up to impeaching President Bush?
That’s right.
That would be Congressman Mike Castle, Republican, of Delaware.
Here’s the link from Thomas of Roll Call 401, the final vote. .
And here’s a link to what Congressman Kucinich had to say on the subject.
Now the question is: why would Mike Castle do something like this? Yes, yes, I know he’s close to his friends in SEIU and gets their money. That he opposed the Iraq surge, supported the teacher bailouts etc. etc.
There were 23 other Republicans who joined him in supporting Kucinich’s impeachment passion, so perhaps it was a parliamentary necessity agreed upon by the leadership. But 166 “No” votes from Republicans would seem to indicate there was considerable GOP revulsion at what Kucinich was trying to do. But not, it would seem, from Castle.
This morning’s Wall Street Journal carries a perceptive letter to the editor from an Iowa reader on the Castle-O’Donnell showdown. The reader points out that the September 8th issue of the WSJ carried two separate pieces on the subject. One piece, “Tea Party Favorite Alarms Delaware GOP,” refers to Castle as “the most liberal among House Republicans.” Yet in the WSJ editorial the same day, “The Tea Party and the GOP” Castle is described as a “moderate” Republican. Reader Roger Payne goes on to say:
Out here in Iowa someone who is the most liberal Republican in the House is not a moderate. Maybe this is one reason the Republican Party is having so much trouble around the country, because one person’s moderate is another person’s liberal. The Republican Party needs to decide what kind of party it is going to be.
Well said, Mr. Payne from Iowa.
For my money, the future of the Republican Party shouldn’t be anything close to agreeing with one of the furthest left House Democrats that a resolution calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush is in order.
Apparently, Congressman Castle disagrees. If that’s not the case, then there surely is a very good reason there were not 167 votes against Kucinich instead of 166.
I’m open to explanations while we await the vote.
And for the record — let’s say ahead of time — I’m with the winner of the Delaware GOP primary, whomever that might be. One would expect the same from Mr. Castle and his supporters if he loses. After all, they supported Christine O’Donnell in 2008 when Castle was afraid to challenge Biden. They did, didn’t they?
View all comments (49) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/14/castle-vote-to-impeach-bush
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
albert constantine, jr.| 9.14.10 @ 12:43PM
I had not forgotten that vote. It helped significantly (along with Cap & Trade, embryonic stem cell research) in my decision when I cast my vote this morning for O'Donnell.
Siegfried X| 9.14.10 @ 12:50PM
This is a "moderate" Republican?
Sean| 9.14.10 @ 12:59PM
Bush should have been impeached for breaking his Oath of office to defend the Constitution. How much unconstitutional legislation did he sign?
Steve-O| 9.14.10 @ 1:08PM
Sean- I do not think that unconstitutional legislation was the charge that Kucinich was seeking to bring. As a matter of fact I belive that he would like more unconstitutional legislation (Cap n' Tax, Single Payer, Department of Peace, ect.). He wanted to impeach the President of the United States for fullfilling his constitutional duty to defend the republic from foreign enemies.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.10 @ 1:38PM
Steve-O,
the only answer to the Seans of the world: "Hey Stupid...kiss my hiney."
Occam's Tool| 9.14.10 @ 1:59PM
And do you know who votes with Kucinich on every matter affecting foreign policy? RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 9.14.10 @ 2:01PM
Including on this one! Ron Paul is a scumbag and a traitor!
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 3:02PM
Yes he is. Another Leftist in conservative's clothing aka Libertarian in Republican's clothing.
The lunatic in the grass.
But don't confuse the Israel haters with the facts. They love the way he votes.
Al Adab| 9.14.10 @ 3:41PM
Margie,
As you and I discussed once before the error of the Libertarians is the lack of understanding of the moral facets involved in law. Without a moral base Liberty (in Law) becomes simple license and that is the distinction between Conservatives and Libertarians.
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 3:53PM
Al Adab,
And there IS a huge distinction. Libertarians are NOT conservative. I really am so sick of their false accusations and insults to the effect that I am not a conservative because I will not denounce the Republican party. These despicable lowlifes think they are holier than thou because they will not vote for the opposition party if it isn't one of their select candidates. Who do they think they are? They contribute themselves to the election of Obama as in a vote for Bozo the Clown written in on their ballot, or a no vote yet blame us, the voters for choosing to vote for the only party that exists to oppose the Left.
Useful flaming idiots! And they all have the same vile hatred for Israel and Biblical Christianity as well. Birds of a feather. Perpetual losers. Just get out of the way, then. If they want to give the election to the Left, we have that much more work to do. You'd think they'd want to win, but the hatred they have is not to the Left~their strange political bedfellows~ but to the Right!
Herb Tarlek| 9.14.10 @ 3:50PM
He's a kook because he believes in gold & wants to end the Fed but he is no traitor. He is insufficiently supportive of Israel though. Not sure if that makes him a scumbag.
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 3:55PM
What makes him a scumbag is this statement of his: "They are terrorists because of us!"
He is a Blame America First useful idiot for the Left. Like the rest of the lot.
Warrior | 9.14.10 @ 5:45PM
Could please reference where Mr. Paul stated this.
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 6:14PM
It's on a youTube video of him on t.v. Find it yourself.
Matthew| 9.14.10 @ 6:19PM
Why so rude? Honey works better than vinegar.
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 6:22PM
Uh, me? If you want to call that rude feel free but "Warrior" has insulted, demeaned and condescendingly spoken to me on several occasions. I have no patience for his ilk.
Okeedokee?
Matthew| 9.14.10 @ 7:04PM
No wonder he insults you!
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 8:53PM
Quaint.
Beth| 9.14.10 @ 9:06PM
Nutjob!
Warrior | 9.14.10 @ 9:15PM
I insulted Margie, that's funny. She's so forthcoming and warm to people with differing opinions. Of course she can't post a reference to what doesn't exist. So she can assert any allegation she wants because she claims it exists...somewhere. You have no patience for anyone who questions your postings. I'm sure Ron Paul insulted you, after all you call him a traitor and a scumbag.
Matthew| 9.14.10 @ 9:42PM
I don't remember you insulting anyone, Warrior; it's not your style. That's why I questioned her rude retort.
I think Margie's confusing you with Red--he's a real smart ass and he has insulted her--a lot!
Margie| 9.14.10 @ 1:49PM
Yes and the Seans & Tim*'s and hot Toddies of the country would agree to impeach GW~ Leftist's in conservative clothing. The same ones who call us regular folk "Serial Traitors to the conservative cause!"
Warrior | 9.14.10 @ 1:58PM
You are hillarious. Under your keen Constitutional eye, we would probably have to impeach every president back to at least Jackson if not Hamilton. The issue here has nothing to do with impeachment but , dare I say it, the "bizzarre" voting record of the GOP endorsed candidate for US Senator.
Nukeface J| 9.14.10 @ 3:16PM
"... every president back to ...Hamilton..."
Yes, let's dig President Hamilton up and shoot him again with Aaron Burr's gun!
Anna Keppa| 9.15.10 @ 9:17PM
Sean, if you were a knife in the kitchen drawer, you would be the clam knife. How on earth could Bush be impeached for signing unconstitutional laws, when the House and Senate responsible for sending him that legislation would be his judges? Better step away from that bong, sir.
Booger| 9.14.10 @ 1:24PM
How soon can we impeach Castle?
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.10 @ 1:39PM
Hey Booger.............TODAY!
say a little prayer.
Brady| 9.14.10 @ 1:40PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....027220.php
Read this. In fact, you should have read it prior to posting something like this.
Nolann Ryann| 9.14.10 @ 1:55PM
One of 24. Then why did the other 166 Rs vote against it? Also let's not forget Castle was one of the moderates that ran up the WH to threaten Bush over the Iraq war. How do we know he was so noble as to save Bush? I doubt it very seriously, but you believe what you want; much like Powerline has thrown all in with a massive RINO whom will band together with the other dolts to block conservative priorities. Anyone remember the gang of 14? Voinovich just gave the Ds cover on their "small business" package. Just stand by for more of the same.
Noalann Ryann| 9.14.10 @ 1:42PM
Well where is Quinn on this one? I suspect he's got a brilliant explanation that will surely sway all of us knuckle dragging conservatives how electable this guy will be. Where is McCormack and his legions of investigative reporters? On the same topic where is that moron John Tabin? Oh that's right he's comparing O'Donnell voters to crazed Islamic suicide bombers. Of course I would expect nothing less from a no talent hack.
SoCon| 9.14.10 @ 2:08PM
I've got to say one thing for you, Jeffrey--you're relentless. Thank you.
Glad you're on our side.
Tim| 9.14.10 @ 2:34PM
Gotta go to NRO and see how they feel about their man Castle now...
Ben| 9.14.10 @ 2:38PM
Commenters: This is not true. Support who you like, but Mr. lord is doing nothing but trying to trick you, here. (That or he doesn't understand the story at all...) Please look to a more reputable source to find out how this actually went down.
SoCon| 9.14.10 @ 2:42PM
That you, Quin? Just kidding.
CountryClassKook| 9.14.10 @ 3:00PM
Trick? More reputable source? More reputable than Thomas.gov, the Library of Congress site? The resolution: "Title: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors."
Roll call vote: Castle = Yea.
Pretty straight forward: Castle voted FOR a resolution that could have led to impeachment proceedings against Bush.
Flee| 9.14.10 @ 3:10PM
What is untrue? The rollcall vote is pretty clear. State what is erroneous and trickery.
Spicy Joker| 9.14.10 @ 3:05PM
Looks like it's a choice between liberal Mike Casshole and fraud Christine O'Dumbbell.
Mark Myers| 9.14.10 @ 3:06PM
Jeffrey Lord needs to take a long vacation to clear his head. See the following from the Weekly Standard ...
No, Mike Castle Didn't Vote to Impeach President Bush
BY Mary Katharine Ham
As the Republican primary for the Senate seat from Delaware manages to become even more heated than it's been thus far, the newest charge of O'Donnell backers is that Rep. Mike Castle voted to impeach President George W. Bush.
Those backers are referring to this vote, taken in June 2008. As you can see from the roll call, fully 24 Republicans voted to impeach President Bush, including conservatives like Pete King of New York and Kevin Brady of Texas. One imagines that would have been rather big news had it happened.
But it didn't happen. The vote in question was on a motion to refer Rep. Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, where most of the Republicans who voted on it calcluated it would die a slow death, with no one willing to give it time in the committee.
And, there it did die. Powerline:
There you have it. Mike Castle never voted to impeach President Bush; no such vote ever occurred on the floor of the House. He did vote to commit goofball Congressman Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, where it died, as intended, a slow death. And Castle's office said that it opposed impeachment because "they believed there weren't any crimes committed by the Bush administration."
From a contemporaneous news article on the vote (via Jim Geraghty):
More: ”By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president.”
Castle's not conservative, but this accusation is just not true.
Tim| 9.14.10 @ 3:18PM
I'm more confused than ever. And this time it's not my medications...
Siegfried X| 9.14.10 @ 3:22PM
The accusation is true. Reading the same article referred to above, the Republican leadership told their members to vote "no". So by voting "yes", Castle was defying his leadership and party, and was indicating that he might impeach President Bush. From the article MKH linked to:
...166 Republicans voted no - a tactic designed to force Democrats to address the measure publicly.
Their votes technically could have kept alive the possibility that the resolution could come up on the House floor, and Republicans wanted to expose Democrats for their "trivial and silly conspiracy theories," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for the House GOP leadership.
Bo| 9.14.10 @ 3:56PM
Does this mean Mary Katherine Ham is a RINO, too? Evidently, too much tea causes mental illness.
Julia| 9.14.10 @ 4:48PM
Or crack cocaine, in your case.
MikeN| 9.14.10 @ 3:46PM
The left was not satisfied with these yes votes, they felt it was just a chance to kill the impeachment. AT THE TIME, Castle said he was against impeachment.
Thomas| 9.14.10 @ 5:01PM
He voted yes, even though he wanted to vote no and would have voted no if they had another vote. Sounds similar to John Kerry, doesn't it? There is a sterling recommendation for voting for a Republican.
Peter Iovino| 9.14.10 @ 6:40PM
Hang on a minute: there were some solid conservative Republicans voting yes, including my unimpeachably conservative congressman, Frank Wolf, not to mention Dave Dreier of California. So, there was something else afoot of a parliamentary nature afoot.
Grant Johnson| 9.14.10 @ 9:03PM
Today I feel ashamed to read The American Spectator. Alinsky and his disciple Obama lie and distort to achieve their ends. We expect no better from them. They think the ends justify any means. We should be better than that. I am conservative and I believe the truth exists and that it matters. Neither Castle or O'Donnell are perfect candidates, and there are honorable reasons for supporting either one (or neither) in this election. But when you resort to lies and willful distortions to make your case, you pervert the truth and damage your cause. Jeffrey Lord is free to support O'Donnell, but this kind of dishonest reporting leaves a stain on the reputations of Jeffrey Lord, The American Spectator and conservatism in general.
Matt| 9.14.10 @ 9:07PM
Screw you.
Elmer| 9.15.10 @ 5:17AM
Pingback has it right and the Liberal's are squeeling
WilliamPenn| 9.15.10 @ 9:15PM
Despite the Congressional Record, Castle, on 09-15-10, in a TV interview, implied that assertions he cast that vote are lies. That's exactly why you're out of a job, Mike.