Tag: james clyburn

#rsrh QotD, Did He Stamp His Foot? edition.

James Clyburn (via Instapundit), speaking in full awareness that he is a long-haul Congressman who is secure in the knowledge that his party will frame any attempt to make his seat competitive as being an assault against civil rights:

“We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else…”

Which, if true, is something to be marked in the TSA’s favor.  Still, I doubt anything of the sort has happened.  Unless you define “treated like everybody else” as “not literally kowtowing,” which I believe is not yet formally required procedure for dealing with Members of Congress.  Oh, wait: I forgot.  We threw out a lot of idiots last November who thought that it was.

Still: must be nice to be able to say whatever fool things come into your head without worrying about the consequences or context.  Bad for your long-term cognitive abilities, of course – but still, it must be nice.

Moe Lane

Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn share a smaller pie.

I’m not… appalled: this is minority-party business, and as such is not likely to interfere with the real business of the House anyway.  But… wow.  Just… wow.  They’re going to short-circuit the looming Hoyer/Clyburn Minority Whip fight by giving Clyburn an extra-special new #3 position, just for him!  No word on the duties, privileges, job description, or even the name of said position (I suggest Super-Magical Double-Rainbow Space Pony Universe Champion, but that’s just me) – but it’s definitely the #3 slot!

The real question is: is this an opportunity to go after Hoyer (and thus what remaining House ‘moderates’ still survive) by putting Clyburn into a position to weaken the Whip’s job?  Or is this yet another instance where Pelosi and her party demonstrates the soft bigotry of lowered expectations by giving the senior African-American Democrat* in Congress a meaningless title (while making sure that Clyburn stays in his assigned place in the Democratic party’s hierarchy)?  I could see it going either way… or maybe the Democratic leadership just doesn’t care enough about either group to favor one above the other.  Which would honestly not surprise me in the slightest, honestly.

Via Hot Air.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I’ll have to get used to distinguishing between Democratic and Republican African-Americans in Congress now, I guess.  Aw, shucks.

James Clyburn (D, SC-06) dangles potential public option carrot.

(Via AoSHQ) Rep. James Clyburn went out there today to promise that, if only Democratic voters come out and keep their feckless legislators in control of Congress, said feckless legislators will maybe get a public option going next year. Although one suspects that if Democratic voters just elect Clyburn he’ll hold up under the strain somehow.

“Reelect me, keep Democrats on the field. And when we come back next year, maybe we will get to the public option,” Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) said during an appearance on the Tom Joyner Morning Show.

“Maybe.” Some thoughts on this: Continue reading James Clyburn (D, SC-06) dangles potential public option carrot.

#RSRH Cui bono, Rep Clyburn? No, really: cui bono?

Seriously, what is Rep. Clyburn’s problem?

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) theorized that an operative ran unemployed Army veteran Alvin Greene’s (D) South Carolina Senate campaign to create a “mess.”

The Hill touches on the major objections to this… well, ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis’ both seem to give this more credit than it deserves: perhaps ‘allegation?’  Whatever one wishes to call it, it seems to assume that there would be some point for putting Candidate A in the designated ‘crushed by DeMint in November’ slot, rather than Candidate B.  At this point in South Carolina politics, the various Federal and state executive seats are all pretty much foregone conclusions: John Spratt (D) is the most at-risk incumbent, while the Democrats are not expected to flip any seats in this hostile election atmosphere.  So it’s a good question to ask why anybody would bother risking a scandal just to make sure that the rubble bounced farther.

Or am I over-analyzing this?  Is it just that, after 70 years of being carefully taught to do so, Rep. Clyburn’s simply comfortable with the idea that all Bad Things that happen are the result of sinister, hidden forces?

Rep. Clyburn abandons public option on behalf of Democratic party.

Here we go.

The House’s third-ranking Democrat said Sunday that he can support a healthcare reform bill without a public option.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) — a proponent of a government-run public plan — said that he could back the bill as long as it creates more choice and competition in the insurance industry and reduces costs. “It’s of no consequence” whether it’s done via the public option or not.

(H/T: Hot Air Headlines) Translation: House Democrats are going to abandon the public option. Ignore the nonsense about more choice and reduced costs: that’s for the rubes and the netroots. They went with the #3 House Democrat to make the announcement because both Pelosi and Hoyer want to appear to be reluctantly going along with this, instead of enthusiastically: if the endgame ends up reminding you of their FISA ‘capitulation,’ well, there’s a reason for that.  Anyway, this is probably back on track for being settled by the State of the Union address.  In fact, they’re probably right now working out how many liberal House members can vote ‘no’ on the bill and still get it to pass.

I’d be offended at the Democratic leadership’s upcoming betrayal of their own (loudly stated) principles, if only I believed that they had them in the first place.  As I didn’t and don’t, the best that I can muster is a slightly cynical moue of distaste.  And that’s only because I’ve never gotten to use the word ‘moue’ in a post before.

Moe Lane

PS: The final language on federal funding on abortion will be at whatever point between Stupak’s and the Senate’s version that will cause the NRLC to stop threatening to score the final vote.  If that call hasn’t been made yet, it will be.

Crossposted to RedState.

James Clyburn’s (D, SC-06) timeline for withdrawal.

  • June 16th, 2006: Voted nay on a resolution rejecting the imposition of a timeline on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
  • February 16, 2007: Voted to condemn the ultimately-successful surge strategy that allowed us to win the Iraq War
  • March 10, 2007: Clyburn acts as whip for Iraq supplemental bill that included a timeline for withdrawal.
  • May 1, 2007: Clyburn condemns Bush’s veto of the anti-victory, so-called “Iraq Accountability Act.”
  • July 30th, 2007: “Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War” (and thus make the imposition of a timeline more difficult for the Democrats).

Continue reading James Clyburn’s (D, SC-06) timeline for withdrawal.