Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Moderates in Congress Pledge to Work for Bi-Partisan Solution

From The Hill

House lawmakers release bipartisan agreement on Iraq, seek end to rhetoric
By Bob Cusack
September 26, 2007

A group of 28 House lawmakers unveiled a bipartisan agreement on Iraq Tuesday and called on their leaders to “end the political rhetoric and focus on substantive approaches to improving stability” in the Middle Eastern country.At press time, Reps. Mike Castle (R-Del.) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.) released the multi-pronged “Bipartisan Compact on Iraq Debate.” The compact was signed by 14 Democrats and 14

In a release, Castle said, “Following months of gridlock, this is the most bipartisan agreement reached on the issue of Iraq in the House of Representatives. … I am hopeful this group can carve out the middle ground that is vital to achieving stability in the region and bringing our soldiers home from Iraq.

The eight principles that the 28 members agreed to are: bipartisan dialogue on Iraq; opposition to efforts to eliminate troop funding; a defined and measurable mission; a shift in responsibility to the Iraq government; adequate rest time for U.S. troops between deployments; safe and responsible redeployment based on recommendations from military leaders; transitioning of
the U.S. mission to counterterrorism; support of Iraqi forces; and robust iplomacy in the Middle East.

Members who signed the compact are Reps. Tanner, ene Taylor (D-Miss.), Bud Cramer (D-Ala.), Marion Berry (D-Ark.), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Brian Baird (D-Wash.), Nick Lampson (D-Texas), Dennis Moore (D-Kan.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Mike Ross (D-Ark.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Castle,
Thomas Petri (R-Wis.), Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Phil English (R-Pa.), Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio), Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Timothy Johnson (R-Ill.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), and Charles Dent (R-Pa).

If your Rep is on the list give them a call and tell them to keep up the good work.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

as kos says
"Why is there this pathetic need to "pass something" with "bipartisan support"?

Larry Handlin (ArchPundit) said...

This is truly a baffling post. Most of those people voted against giving the troops 1 year off for every year in Iraq.

Beyond that, The President has rejected everything they are asking for--so unless they move to cut off funding, what good is a statement?

We wish the Bush administration was competent and would listen so we'll act like it does and be completely irrelevant?

What exactly are these people 'accomplishing?' Making David Broder happy?

Anonymous said...

Annon 4:15- that is exactly the problem with Kos and other extreme postions. That type of statement is the type that would keep me from supporting someone as Dan Seals or Jay Footlik. While I am not a huge fan of Mark Kirk's, I do applaud his efforts to work with Democrats and Republicans. It seems to me that both Dan Seals and Jay Footlik are too extreme on the left and subscribe to your and Kos's beleif that working in a bi-partisan way is "pathetic".

Anonymous said...

Hey, Anonymous who's quoting Kos...when legislation has bi-partisan support it means we ALL are in agreement! I think that's what sets Mr. Kirk apart from the partisans who want it their way or the highway. If you do a search of all of his legislative efforts you will see that all of them have a Democratic co-sponsor. Isn't that the greatness of our country? It's not pathetic to want bi-partisan support.......it's the AMERICAN way! If we had more members of Congress who would be willing to work across party lines I'm sure we'd get things done. Your way is a recipe for disaster. What part of compromise, what part of shared goals don't you understand?

Larry Handlin (ArchPundit) said...

What's missing is that no one can say what Kirk's legislation will do.

Nothing. His offer is nothing.

His legislation doesn't do anything--so how is that a compromise? It's a blank check to Bush who got us in this mess and won't admit a mistake.

In relation to bipartisanship, I never have understood why it is in itself a good thing.

People disagree about public policy and they have differences. Those differences lead to coherent government if one party is in power.

Generally, bipartisanship produces pork and not solutions. This is pretty well understood in the Political Science literature yet the notion that bipartisanship is a solution in itself is perpetuated. Why?

Unincorporated Middle said...

Larry,

As partisan rhetoric becomes increasingly outrageous (calls to censure moveon.org and Limbaugh) a willingness on the part of our elected officials to work across party lines becomes more important.

It is not apart pork. It is about finding a way to govern, however messy, when the extremes at both ends of the spectrum seem more intent on scoring political points.