Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Iraq war veteran, double-amputee, elected to Congress. As a Democrat. But she’s too sick to travel because she’s pregnant.
The Democrats won’t let her vote in a Democrat party leadership election by proxy.
Let’s see, Democrats, did we leave any boxes unchecked in our hateful War on Women?
Joe Doakes
If we were playing blackout bingo, we’d be headed home with the big prize.
For the life of me, I still can’t believe that any veteran would want to even claim to be a Democrat! The history of that party since Barackus Obamanus I first ran for office, should give all of them a reality check!
Personally, BH429, I wish more Democrats (and politicians in general) had experience in the armed forces. Having others depending on you and your actions for their safety if not their life is an important experience many non-military types lack. Democrats far too often believe their good intentions are/were enough.
One thing I haven’t seen in any of the ‘news’ reports is if this type of exclusion has happened before. I know there are plenty of reports or various Congress types being absent for votes for illness – but how often have they allowed a member to vote from their hospital bed?
Duckworth, as one might imagine for a person with her life and command experience, is fairly outspoken and had spoken out about Pelosi’s incompetence. Not surprised that Pelosi would want to follow the rules “this time”. Color me unsurprised that the Narrative Coordinators haven’t pointed out how often and why there have been exceptions in the past. That would be ‘news’.
I rather liked Jon Stewart’s take on the story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/19/jon-stewart-tells-nancy-pelosi-to-go-away-right-now/
As a rather rules bound person I tend to lean towards sticking by the book. I’m also not generally in favor of making exceptions “just this once.”
However, perhaps the rule should be changed. It was probably made at a time when only a person’s physical presence could assure that they were casting their vote or doing other official business. Fine.
However. given our current technology and various means of secure communication, such a requirement is overly burdensome, archaic, and impractical.
Perhaps those who have a better understanding of our political system could set me straight. However, I see very little reason why a physical presence requirement remain in place. At least in situations such as this.
Pelosi denied Duckworth a vote because Duckworth intended to cast her vote in a way in which Pelosi did not approve.
To the Democrat leadership, votes are only legitimate when they are cast in an approved fashion. They haven’t changed since the days of Bull Connor.
War on women, and war on asians, it appears.
The smart move in a case with such exceptional circumstances (pregnant woman unable to travel safely) is to ask the remaining members of the caucus if they’d be willing to consent to a one-time exception by unanimous acclimation or if there was any objection put it to a vote (and make sure that your supporters know to vote “yes” on allowing the pregnant disabled veteran to vote remotely).
This way the leader and the rest of the caucus get to look like decent human beings while still following the rules (pretty much any rule can be suspended or changed if the members agree) and the risk of having an additional vote against your preferred candidate is outweighed by the goodwill you gain amongst the rest of your caucus and the public.
Sef; I have to agree with you. If there was a requirement that anyone running for elected federal office for military service, there would most likely be two positives; 1.90% of the worthless libidiot slime balls, would be eliminated and 2. they would hopefully think twice before they spent the blood of our brave men and women on stupid stuff. Of course, even if there were said requirement, libidiots would just violate it like they do everything else that doesn’t fit their narrative or ambitions.