Duplicitous Dave

The Rubber Stamp missed his calling!

2008-06-09T20:46:00.001-07:00

You have to check this out, from the Sunlight Project's Fortune 535:

Amazing. The man shouldn't be in government; he should be at a brokerage firm managing a mutual fund. Seriously.

Why would I say this? Because even prudent investors who'd invested ten grand into Fidelity's Magellan fund in 1995 would only have had a return of 163% in ten years, and actually lost ground between 2005 and the present.

All of which makes me wonder exactly what "Rubber Stamp" does in Washington anyhow. We know he's not actually getting any bills that he's written and submitted passed. Is he spending his time carefully managing his shares of Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) and Dow Chemical (NYSE:DOW)? I'm having a tough time believing he's obtained these kinds of results with stocks like these.

Maybe he's been making other use of his time...who knows? Sure makes it a lot easier to make political donations to one's self or to others if you don't have to worry about income, though.

Cross-posted at Voice of Mordor.

All about Dave "Rubber Stamp" Camp

2008-06-03T14:56:00.001-07:00

Hey, don't take our word for it, that "Rubber Stamp" bit; GovTrack.us classifies Dave Camp as a "rank-and-file Republican".

As in, stinks of corporatism and is unable to think for himself without regular prodding from party officials or lobbyists (same diff, especially if you're a politician of the same mold as John "59 lobbyists as campaign advisers" McCain).

Do take a look at the content at the GovTrack.us link above. Did you know that Camp ranks as "poor" relative to peers when it comes to bill sponsorship? Apparently Camp's rubber stamp on any bill he sponsors or co-sponsors ensures its death, even under the Republican majority in Congress from 1994 through 2006. Wonder what it feels like to be dissed 133 times in more than ten years by ones peers -- yeah, that's the number of Camp's bills that died in committee out of 143 total.

Dave Camp Scores Perfect Zero on the Environment

2008-03-04T06:20:00.000-08:00

Rep. Dave Camp, the Congressional champion of the Dow Chemical Company, has had a perfect record of defending our area's worst polluter and now comes official word on just how bad a Congressman he really has been for the environment.

The League of Conservation Voters, an independent watchdog on environmental issues has just issued its latest National Environmental Scorecard that rates Camp a perfect zero, a distinction that only he earned for his dismal environmental voting record. That's right, no other Michigan member of Congress earned a perfect zero.

Many of our Democratic friends continue to vote for Dave because they "don't think he is THAT bad." Well, my friends, Camp is as bad as it gets.

When it comes to voting for the rich and powerful, Rubber Stamp Camp is always there. When it comes to supporting the Bush administration and Halliburton, you can count on Dave's vote.

But when it comes to clean energy, preserving our natural heritage and saving our planet, Dave Camp votes against it -- not just some of it -- but ALL of it.

Here's a complete rundown of the LCV scores for Michigan's Congressional delegation.

Dave Champions the Unborn, But Refuses to Help Kids Get Health Insurance

2007-11-12T09:14:00.000-08:00

Dave Camp makes no bones that he stands by his Catholic roots and is opposed to abortion, but unlike Church leaders who support help for the poor and children, Camp votes consistently with his rich buddies to deny aid to the downtrodden and votes for tax cuts for the rich.

In just one more example of Camp's total disregard for the health of our children especially the millions of children in America who have no access to health insurance, Camp lived up to his nickname of Rubber Stamp Camp, voting in lockstep with the Bush Administration to oppose the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP). Even though several other Michigan Republicans joined Democrats in passing the legislation and in favor of overriding a Presidential veto, Camp stubbornly refused to give kids a break. Here's how the vote went down on Oct. 18, 2007.

We Need Change In the Fourth District

2007-11-09T15:23:00.000-08:00

"Both diapers and politicians need to be changed often - and for the same reason." Robin Williams in 'Man of the Year'

If there is one politician who needs changing it is certainly the errand boy for the neocons of the Bush administration. "You want a war in Iraq? I'll vote for that," says Dave Camp. "You want to spend billions on Blackwater? Why not"

The stink from Dave Camp's office is really ripe. The guy's been there waaaaay too long.

It's time for a change.

Iraq Spending Bill - Camp Votes No

2007-03-23T15:40:00.000-07:00

The Iraq supplemental bill, which sets a certain date for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, passed out of the U.S. House today. Unsurprisingly, Dave Camp voted against the bill and to continue the war.

But U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, said the legislation would micromanage the war and send a signal to enemies of the United States that "they simply need to hold on a little longer to win."

Camp would prefer no exit strategy or accountability for the war. All the more reason to fire him come November 2008.

When is protecting our troops “anti-troop?”

2007-03-02T20:02:00.000-08:00

Answer: when the Republicans–the ones who are lockstep with Bush’s muddled non-plan for his war in Iraq–say it is. Here is a question for you: if a member of your family was about to be sent to Iraq, wouldn’t you want him or her to have the best available equipment? Of course you would. This is why Representative Jack Murtha (who is a Vietnam veteran) is pushing a plan in Congress that prohibits President Bush from sending more of our sons and daughters to Iraq if they are not well-equipped.

Strangely, the Republicans in Congress are calling Murtha’s plan “anti-troop.” Anti-troop? Hmmm. By this reasoning, putting our children in car seats to protect them shows that we are anti-automobile. Or inoculating them against childhood diseases means we are anti-God (after all, we might be interfering with God’s will).

Either the Republicans have lost their ability to reason, or they value ideology over the lives of our sons and daughters. You might call Representative Dave Camp (his toll free numbers is: 1-800-342-2455) and ask him what he values most: the lives of our troops or sticking with the President‘s failed policy.

The price of support

2007-02-18T06:18:00.000-08:00

Dave Camp voted for more of this:

Surprise, surprise

2007-02-17T06:59:00.000-08:00

Dave Camp wanted to know what his constituents think about the war in Iraq, so he naturally went out to find out ... in a way meant to reinforce the same course of action Camp has advocated all along. And, what do you know ... he got exactly what he was after, and in a way that allows him to couch his vote against the Iraq resolution in a way that makes it look like it's the fault of his constituents rather than the representative.

That's some keen leadin', Dave.

Here are some highlights:

I share with my colleagues, the president, our service men and women and their families the wish that this war was over and won. It is not, and the resolution before us today does nothing to resolve this conflict, reduce the loss of American life, stabilize Iraq or advance our security.

And:

Friends, we may often disagree, but the facts are, regardless of how it began, and irrespective of the benefit of hindsight, we are at war and Iraq is the central battleground.
Islamic extremists are waging a Jihad against us, and they are struggling to make Iraq a base camp. Our focus must be on winning; and disturbingly I see no mention of winning, succeeding or victory in this resolution. That, in itself, is telling of just how the other side perceives this conflict: not in terms of defeating an enemy of America, but in terms of defeating a political foe.

Hear the sound of a hand slapping the head. The distressing thing isn't just that Dave apparently acknowledges that the invasion and subsequent occupation, which he supported, have gone disasterously wrong; or that he his solution to this screw up is to keep adding fuel to the fire; it's that he apparently has no clue what the conflict has turned into (note the translation, a little ways down, of an Arabic news report in which the various sectarian militias are lying low in hopes that we'll do their dirty work for them -- and willing to trick us into doing it). Has any of this penetrated the thinking of Dave Camp, or the realities that we're stuck in a civil war that could suck in the only people who've stayed out of it?

No, it hasn't. That's why Dave voted against a non-binding resolution against the president's strategy of more of the failing same.

It would be wrong to pick on poor Dave and his rotten, stinkin, unwise, blind support of the war without pointing out the monetary cost paid by the state of Michigan for this ongoing blunder of foreign policy. Not to mention the lives of Michigan residents.

Dave can pass the buck, as he did in his comments, to his constituents. Yes, yes, Dave, you were merely listening to the select few who got your survey; but we ought to expect, on tough issues, a little -- you know -- leadership.

Tim Ryan spanks Rubber Stamp Camp and his party

2007-02-04T06:34:00.000-08:00

Tim Ryan and the Democrats aren't going to be lectured to by the Republican minority.

Transcript available at Crooks and Liars.

It's hard to be a rubber stamp when you haven't any ink

2007-02-04T05:33:00.000-08:00

Poor poor Dave Camp.

Remember 'the world’s smallest political quiz’? That little gimmick that is designed to get you to say you are a Libertarian? Well, Rubber Stamp Camp has designed a similar gimmick, and he’s sending it to you.

Eric has already blogged about Camp’s ‘survey’ on the war in Iraq, but you really need to look at the questions to see how desperate Camp is.

I was one of the honored few to receive a copy of the survey. Eric does a great job laying out Camp’s attempts to skew answers in his favor, but there are many more hidden gems in the survey itself.

Camp’s position on Iraq is clear: he supports the President’s escalation. The questions in Camp's survey are designed to manipulate you – the constituent – into supporting that position. The results of this survey give Camp a tool to justify his support of the President.

For example:

1. Looking back, do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against the Taliban in Afghanistan?
-----Right
-----Wrong
-----Unsure
2. Looking back, do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision
in using military force against Iraq?
-----Right
-----Wrong
-----Unsure
3. Generally speaking, do you think our success in Iraq is linked to keeping America
safe from another terrorist attack?
-----Iraq is linked
-----Iraq is not linked
-----Unsure

The first two questions may or may not matter. Most people will say it was right to go to Afghanistan and will answer either ‘wrong’ or ‘unsure’ to Iraq. Using the popular support for Afghanistan, Camp will say that his constituents support using the military to fight the GWOT. If most people vote ‘wrong’ or ‘unsure’ on Iraq, Camp will say we have to move forward and focus on victory. If most people vote that it was right to go into Iraq, then it’s a bonus for Camp.

The third question doesn’t matter unless the majority opinion is that ‘Iraq is linked’. Of course the question doesn’t define ‘success’ or explore how Iraq is linked. Someone could answer ‘Iraq is linked’ and still oppose Camp’s position … but that’s not how Camp will interpret the answer.

4. Should the U.S. keep military troops in Iraq until the country’s emerging democracy is secure and can defend itself, or should we bring our troops home as soon as possible regardless of any potential impact on security in the U.S. or Iraq?
-----Secure Iraq
-----Bring troops home
-----Unsure

The language of this question nudges people to answer in Camp’s favor. No one is going to say we should follow a particular course of action ‘regardless of any potential impact on security in the U.S. or Iraq.’

Look at what Camp does in this next question:

5. Here are four potential different strategies the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately? Withdraw all troops by January 2008, or some other specific date? Withdraw troops only after Iraq is stabilized? OR, Send more troops to Iraq now?
-----Withdraw immediately
-----Withdraw by date certain
-----Take as long as needed
-----Send more troops
-----Unsure

First, Camp insists that you choose only one answer, which psychologically pushes the uncertain people to ‘unsure’. Then he presents the questions in such a way that you cannot choose the options that many people would support: ‘stabilize Iraq by a certain date’ so that we can begin redeployment. Then in the answer section he equates the choice to ‘Withdraw troops only after Iraq is stabilized’ with ‘take as long as needed’. Since no one wants to ‘take as long as needed,’ this pressures you to choose ‘send more troops’ or ‘unsure’.

6. Should the U.S. set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq?
-----Should
-----Should not
-----Should get out now
-----Unsure

This question only matters to Camp if the majority supports his position. The previous question skews people toward ‘unsure’.

7. Some have suggested Congress should try to block the President’s plan to send additional troops into Iraq by withholding funding. Do you support Congress withholding funding for these troops?
-----Withold funds
-----Do not withold funds
-----Unsure

Nobody supports withholding funds for troops ... this conjures images of troops without helmets and flak jackets. This question is phrased to pressure you to support the President’s escalation by opposing the withholding of funds for the escalation.

8. Some have suggested Congress should try to cap the number of troops in Iraq. Do you support putting a limit on the number of troops that can be deployed in Iraq?
-----Cap troops
-----Do not cap troops
-----Unsure

This is another question that is only relevant if you answer in Camp’s favor. The survey discourages the ‘cap troops’ answer by placing this question directly after a question about withholding funds. Most people think of withholding funds and capping troops as dangerous for the troops. Those people are going to say ‘no cap’ or ‘unsure.’

9. Some have suggested Congress should pass a non-binding resolution opposing the President’s new strategy in Iraq. Do you think Congress should pass such a resolution, or does that send the wrong message to our troops and our enemies?
-----Pass resolution
-----Wrong message
-----Unsure

Camp is jonesing for you to say that it sends the wrong message. But most will say ‘unsure.’ Of course, if the majority of respondents support the resolution, Camp will emphasize that his constituents support a non-binding resolution, and therefore, do not want to tie the hands of the President.

10. As you know, the President has outlined a new, four-pronged plan to help us succeed in Iraq. The President’s plan includes sending in roughly 20,000 additional troops, increasing diplomatic efforts, increasing economic assistance and requiring the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. Do you favor or oppose the President’s new strategy?
-----Favor
-----Oppose
-----Unsure

And there it is … the big one. Let’s look at the President’s plan … “roughly 20,000 additional troops” doesn’t sound so bad, does it? And the rest of the plan sounds pretty good … maybe we should’ve done that before. Of course people are going to support the President’s 4 part plan as it is laid out here, because the last 3 parts sound good, while the first part didn’t sound so bad.

Eric cited this source, which mentioned that “Camp "continues to evaluate the war and its progress," Camp spokesman Sage Eastman said when asked whether the survey's questions mean Camp is fundamentally re-evaluating his positions.”

I don’t know why anyone would question the survey’s purpose. This quiz is nothing more than a gimmick to get people to say they are either unsure of the course in Iraq, or that they support the President’s position. Camp will take your responses to the House floor and say that the people of Michigan do not oppose the President’s escalation of the war in Iraq.

By the way, if you had elected Mike Huckleberry in 2006, you would have a Congressman who wouldn’t be trying to trick you into supporting the President.

Gaming the results

2007-02-03T15:21:00.000-08:00

Dave wants to know what you think about the war in Iraq. And, he's asking your advice and doesn't care if you're a Democrat, Republican; or if you think the war is a mistake or if you think it's a worthwhile cause.

Eastman estimated that 5,000 to 10,000 people will open the e-mailed message containing the survey. With war-related House votes possible, plans were to tally survey responses Friday and about a week later, Eastman said. But people also can respond after that, either by e-mail or by letter, he said.

Excellent, you say, excellent. It's good to see someone in Congress seeking out the opinions of those whom he claims to represent.

But, you're wondering, how did he pick those 5,000-10,000 people in the 4th. Well, here's your answer.

* The survey is unscientific. The questions went to people (Camp supporters and others) who requested Camp's electronic newsletter plus some other residents of the 14-county congressional district.

Uh-huh. So, if you think Dave Camp is a partisan hack, there is good reason to think that you aren't signed up for Dave's electronic newsletter. In that case, Dave isn't so interested in what you think.

Of course, you can be forgiven if you think Dave's mind is already made up on this.

"Iraq has become the central battleground in the War on Terror," Camp's introductory letter said. It adds:
"Islamic extremists, some backed by Iran and others by al Qaeda, are attempting to turn Iraq into a safe haven from which they can plot and launch future attacks on our homeland. The consequences of failure in Iraq are grave.
"We also know that staying the course is not acceptable. I have said in the days since the president announced his new strategy for the War in Iraq that this is our last chance to succeed. Progress must be made quickly if the country is to stabilize.
"It is my belief that there is no greater issue facing our country than the War in Iraq. I also firmly believe, as I know you do, that our troops have served ably and honorably. To those that have served and are still serving, we owe an unrepayable debt. I will be forever grateful for their service to our country, and will do everything in my power to ensure they have the full support of their government from the first day they put on that uniform and every day thereafter."

Of course, the idea that Iran and al-Qaeda are stirring up trouble in Iraq is contrary to our latest NIE, but what the heck. We also know that Dave doesn't want Congress to tie the hands of President 30%-er on the war.

So, really, the question raises itself ... Dave, rather than picking what must be a small, supportive sample of people for their opinions, why not either take a leadership role in the face of continued carnage, or at least take a gander at neutral, objective, scientific polls of what the American people want rather than relying on the people who sign up for your electronic newsletter.

The answer answers itself.

Dave Camp, not a leader. Dave Camp, out of touch.

Camp Tries To Silence Voices In The House

2007-01-30T12:32:00.000-08:00

Camp got out his shiny rubber stamp for yet another party line vote last week. Thanks to the Democratic majority, H Res 78 passed against Camp’s resounding ‘No’.

H Res 78 amends the House rules so that the Delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Washington DC, as well as the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, can vote with the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives consists of every House member. Four out of the five Delegates/ Resident Commissioner in the 110th Congress caucus with the Democratic Party.

Recent News Does Not Bode Well For Camp

2007-01-28T11:49:00.000-08:00

A couple of recent news pieces bring bad news for Dave Camp.

Camp's voting record clearly demonstrates that he identifies as a party line Republican. When his party's conservative, he's conservative. When his party is moderate, he's moderate. A couple of recent news pieces indicate that Camp's rubber stamp loyalty isn't going to work out for him in '08.

First, there's this disturbing Newsweek poll, which indicates that only 30% of Americans approve of Bush, while 48% say that their opinion of Bush will be at least "somewhat important" in determining who gets their vote in '08. 61% are dissatisfied with the way things are going in America. 31% of Republicans say that their party didn’t do enough to challenge the administration on the war.

(By the way, does anyone else remember the slogan, "On their turf, on our terms. Not on our turf, on their terms"? You should, if you were unfortunate enough to encounter one of Camp's campaign schleps in 2004. That's how he defended his support for the war.)

America is dissatisfied, and even Republicans aren't happy with Republicans. But Camp can take comfort in the fact that his gerrymandered district was carved out to fit him perfectly, right?

But then comes this little piece, from ABC News 12:

But as some look to the future, they say it may get worse. In Mid Michigan, Genesee County doesn’t have the highest percentage of kids living in poverty.

Of counties with populations over 65,000, Saginaw County has the most, followed by Isabella and Midland counties with numbers in the teens and Shiawassee and Lapeer with more than 10 percent of their children living in poverty.

Saginaw. Isabella. Midland. Shiawassee.

All in the 4th district.

All of them "represented" by Camp.

People are suffering. People are dissatisfied. People don't like Bush. Bush is a Republican. Camp is nothing but a Republican.

Bye bye, Rubber Stamp Camp.

Camp and stem cells

2007-01-19T19:40:00.000-08:00

Once again, ol’ Rubber Stamp Camp has voted “no” on stem cell research just like his party told him to. He got away with it before because W, who has no problem with basing public policy on personal religious beliefs, vetoed the legislation and the Republican-controlled Congress rolled over and played dead again.

It is different this time around. Bush has vowed to veto this legislation, but this time is that the Democratics might be able to override his veto. We have the votes in the Senate, but the House is still iffy.

Contact Camp and urge him to take a brave and, for him, scary step, and vote “yes” to override the veto. If he responds with the usual “concern for human life” (something that has not concerned him much as he voted to send American soldiers to needlessly die in Iraq; legalized automatic weapons; or when he cast the many votes against funding for pre-natal health care, health care for the children of the poor, and the many other “no” votes that diminished the lives of the poor and middle class), let him know that his constituents are finally waking up his hypocrisy, and 2008 is not far away.

Rubber Stamp Camp Endangered In '08?

2007-01-19T07:20:00.000-08:00

According to a MyDD analysis, Republican Rubber Stamp Dave Camp is the 50th most endangered Representative in Congress.

Those of us who pay attention to Rubber Stamp Camp should only be surprised that he isn't higher on the list. In '06, Rubber Stamp Camp spent over a million dollars to pull in 60% of the vote in an area that went 55% for Bush just two years earlier. Camp was up against Mike Huckleberry, who spent just over $55,000, and had very little support from the party organization.

By the way, if you’re wondering … that’s a ratio of over 19 Rubber Stamp dollars for every single Huck buck. And cost per vote? Dioxin Dave paid $6.86 for each of his votes. Huck paid a meager 55 cents.

Some people credit Huck's strong showing against Camp to the "blue wave" that swept across America, but the fact is that voters are catching on to the fact that Dave Camp is not only a rubber stamp, but a corporate sell-out and a PAC hack. Camp raised 69% of his total funds from special interest PACs, and he's delivered on those investments. One example ... in more than a decade of consistently exporting American jobs and importing Central & South American (read: low cost) labor, Camp finally stepped up to protect American workers. Which American workers, you ask? Just the sugar farmers.

You want Dave Camp to fight for your job? You gotta pay him.

And who can forget Camp’s shameless attempt to change House rules to protect the criminal Tom Delay? Dave's nothing if not loyal to his pals.

As for Camp’s ideology, that’s a bit hard to figure out. He markets himself as a small government conservative, but no public dollar is too great to spend on limiting your speech, your civil liberties, and your right to live and die with dignity. He likes to preach against “death taxes”, but he has no problem with the “birth taxes” he creates with his borrow and spend philosophy. Ask him on any given day what exactly he stands for, and he’ll get back to you after he measures which way the Republican wind is blowing. Check his voting record … Camp hasn’t had an independent thought for at least 16 years.

Camp is more vulnerable than people think. There is only one thing keeping Camp in Congress, and that’s the absence of a competitive Democratic Party.

Rubber Stamping report

2007-01-17T08:24:00.000-08:00

"Rubber Stamp" Camp continues to vote for Party above constituents. Being a rubber stamp for the RNC means one doesn't have to get all sweaty while straining to think or actually get feedback from constituents. Just follow the Party talking points, nod your head like one of those toy dogs in the back window of a Buick, and done! It's a gravy job indoors, no heavy lifting; nice work if you can buy it.

Here's this past week's rubber stamps, read 'em and weep:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Minimum Wage Act - Vote Passed (315-116, 4 Not Voting)

This House bill would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 over the next two years.

Rep. Dave Camp voted NO

Never mind that constituents in Michigan have already insisted on changing the minimum wage through pressure on their state legislature because they couldn't wait around for their Congressional representative to actually help them with this at federal level...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - Vote Passed (253-174, 8 Not Voting)

This House bill would expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research

Rep. Dave Camp voted NO

Wonder how all the folks in the 4th CD with diseases like diabetes and heart disease feel about this vote? I'm also wondering how many constituents in the 4th CD actually DIE every year from diseases that could have been treated with gene therapy...but being a member of the "Culture of Life" means Camp doesn't have to strain himself too hard thinking about those complicated numbers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act - Vote Passed (255-170, 10 Not Voting)

This House bill would require the government to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

Rep. Dave Camp voted NO

Don't you wonder how many folks fell into the donut hole this past year, while "Rubber Stamp" collected his dividends on his Pfizer stock? Don't you wonder how many folks might have to choose between heat, making the rent, food or their meds last year and this winter, all because "Rubber Stamp" Camp voted to enrich himself under the last Congress? (Pssst...it's called "conflict of interest.")

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Camp caught a clue on the Implementing the 9/11Commission Recommendations Act and voted YES to support all the Commission's recommendations, but he had to wait for a Democratic majority to field this before he bothered himself with it.

Ugh. What a slacker.

Can hardly contain myself, giddy with anticipation over the prospects of yet another rubber stamping next week; watch his performance on these up-and-coming bills. Odds are even he'll vote Party line using RNC talking points rather than strain himself into a sweat checking with citizens in his district.

Upcoming Votes:

To reduce interest rates for student borrowers - H.R.5
This bill would cut the interest rate on subsidized undergraduate student loans from 6.8% to 3.4%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To end subsidies for big oil and invest in renewable energy - H.R.6
The House is scheduled to take up this bill that would end certain oil company incentives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Did Dave Camp Know? When Did He Know It?

2006-10-09T07:20:00.000-07:00

As if we don't know enough about the failure of the Republican Congress, we now have the question of the Foley Follies and the failure of Republican Congressional leadership. So what did our local Congressman know and when did he know that Congressman Mark Foley was sexually harrassing teenage pages?

Well, Rubber Stamp Camp who votes in lock step with our incompetent President was close enough to the disgraced now-former Congressman that as recently as May 12, 2006 Camp's leadership PAC donated $1,000 to the Foley campaign.

But we now hear from former Congressional staffers that Foley's proclivities were well known in Washington for more than a year. Perhaps, our local Congressman who has now served in his post for almost 16 years is out of the loop. Just a poor schlub who really doesn't know what is going on, do you suppose?

But wait a minute. Isn't our local Congressman part of the Republican Congressional leadership who could or should have known about Foley? Hmmm? Camp claims to be the "deputy majority whip" according to his website.

Do you suppose any of the newspapers in the Fourth Congressional District will actually ask our Congressman what he knew and when he knew it? Don't hold your breath. The local rag is too busy publishing press release photos of our Congressman visiting senior citizen centers.

Camp Rates Zero on Veterans Issues

2006-09-23T06:11:00.000-07:00

Our Congressman in Michigan's Fourth Congresional District likes to figuratively wrap himself in the flag, just like our president. But when it comes to casting votes for those who are maimed by a senseless war that had nothing to do with 9/11 , Dave Camp shows he doesn't care about our veterans. The Disabled Veterans of America(DAV) ratings on issues that matter to those who have been put in harms way gives high marks to Democrats in Michigan. Congressman like Dave Camp, who pay lip service to helping our vets gets a zero rating from the DAV. Check out the ratings of the rest of our Washington delegation from Michigan here.

Dave Camp takes good care of the rich and powerful, but those who come home missing a leg or worse, get the YOYO from Rubber Stamp Camp. (You're On Your Own).

Dave Camp - Champion of the Tobacco Industry

2006-09-21T06:06:00.000-07:00

While Dave "Rubber Stamp Camp" is busy approving trade agreements that help to ruin our local sugar beet industry, he is at least working hard to save one crop -- tobacco. Perhaps there is a farmer or two who grows tobacco in Michigan's 4th Congressional District, but the tobacco drying sheds are well hidden in these parts if there are any.

So one wonders who our Congressman represents when he has become the number one beneficiary among all our Michigan federal elected officials this year with $8,500 in donations. Here's the link. It seems the tobacco industry still wants to make money selling an addictive product that kills and maims and especially to our children.

So after 16 years in Congress, our rubber stamp of a Congressman, has done well for himself and his family, but has forgotten who he represents. Perhaps he should just move to Virginia or the Carolinas where tobacco sheds dot the countryside and fields are full of golden stalks this time of year.

Torture As National Policy? Another Rubber Stamp

2006-09-18T05:42:00.000-07:00

I think I am coming down with a case of outrage fatigue and I suspect many other Democrats are feeling the same way.

I really can't believe what George Bush is doing to our country and after each new fiasco, blunder, ignorant move, outrageous new measure or snafu, I feel outraged. But George Bush will be the very first and, I hope, the last president to lobby Congress in favor of torture.

Eliminating Social Security, lying us into war on our grandkids credit card, allowing corporate lobbyists to write laws that favor the rich and powerful all pale by comparison to a president who avoided his war time duty who loves the idea of torture.

Torture is not a family value. A president promoting torture in MY country? That is totally outrageous. But so are most of George Bush's other policies that have turned the world against us including our allies of just a few years ago.

Torture as national policy is so appalling that even the former kiss-ass Secretary of State Colin Powell couldn't keep quiet.

But I am so tired of being outraged, I am emotionally exhausted. And our local Congressman, Rubber Stamp Camp, will, of course, do what he has been told and again vote lock step with the other Republican rubber stamps to give this morally bankrupt president everything he wants.

Perhaps we need a new slogan. Stop the Outrages, Vote Democratic.

Dave Camp Must Think Voters Are Ignorant and Have Poor Memories

2006-06-17T06:26:00.000-07:00

Dave Camp is at it again.

He continues to defend Bush lies about the so-called "Global War on Terrorism" and its connection with Iraq.

It doesn't matter that academics. pundits and even government insiders, including intelligence folks, have debunked the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, Bush and Camp still keep making it sound as if Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism before we invaded Iraq. But we now know the Bush administration and its rubber stamp defenders like Dave Camp keep repeating the same lies as if they will come true if said often enough.

Camp must think voters are pretty stupid or ignorant. Well, a small percentage of them probably are. Yes, we did believe that going after the folks who planned 9/11 in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but the detour to Iraq was based on lies and then coverups once those lies became known.

The truth is, Iraq only became a magnet for terrorism because we invaded Iraq. Most of us now get it.

But Camp wraps himself in patriotism and denigrates those who seek the truth as if we somehow don't support our troops if we don't buy in to the Bush lies.

But just as Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex lies about the Cold War, we need to remind ourselves that the "Global War on Terrorism" is the new excuse for perpetual war that will lead us to moral and financial ruin.

Camp can say what he wants in eloquently manufactured prose, but it is still a pack of lies.

Dave Camp’s Spin on Why He Voted to Destroy Internet Freedoms

2006-06-11T14:53:00.000-07:00

Dave Camp, along with most other Republicans and a few Democrats, voted against net neutrality and non-discrimination amendments, and for giving AT&T, Verizon, and other big corporations control of the Internet. Here is how is justified his votes, along with translations of what he really means.

<><><><><>

Legislation increases cable TV choices, lower prices

Washington, DC – Responding to overwhelming public demand for more choices among cable television providers, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp (R-Midland) last night voted with a majority of the House to update the nation’s telecommunications laws. Among other reforms, the legislation creates a single, national approval process to speed the entry of competitors into the cable television market.
“Overwhelming public demand...” Yes, the big telcoms spent more than $5 million dollars buying, excuse me, lobbying Congress. That’s a lot of money, but I’m not sure that is the same as “public demand.” Also, having only one national office (run by a Bush appointee) for the “approval process” makes it so much easier for the big telcoms to get into the cable television market. [This is off the subject, but wasn’t it AT&T and Verizon who gave the government our private phone records? Does anybody smell a little “I’ll scratch your back, and you scratch mine” here?]

“Technology has given rise to a vast array of companies able to provide cable services,” said Camp. “The old system of obtaining a franchise locality by locality, however, was keeping millions of Americans from having a choice as to who would provide that service. Instead of having companies apply for a franchise in 34,000 different jurisdictions, this bill creates a one-stop shopping center – one national franchising system which will bring choice to consumers, competition to the cable market and lower prices for everyone.”
Translation: if you’re not a multi-billion dollar cable company able to contribute significant funds to campaign chests, forget about starting you own local company–you’ll never make it past the receptionist. Forget about communities like Mt. Pleasant providing a wireless “bubble” that would allow low-income citizens access to the Internet. Forget about local or national programming that might in any way be critical of the big telcoms, programming, for example, that might question who controls the news.

Local telephone companies now have the ability to offer a pay TV service that is similar to, and will compete with, cable TV. But, in order to do so, competitors to cable must reach time-consuming “franchise agreements” with 34,000 unique jurisdictions. One company official testified that if AT&T signed a franchise agreement every day, it would take more than seven years to complete its deployment plan.
Anyone see a bit of a contradiction here? If you have a “local” telephone company, why would you have to apply to 34,000 unique jurisdictions? On the other hand, apparently AT&T wants to feel like a “local” company...don’t you feel better knowing that?

Study after study has shown that increased video competition will lead to lower cable prices. According to the Government Accountability Office, where there is true cable competition, cable rates are typically 15 percent lower. Experience shows that the savings and choice could be even greater. In Keller, Texas, where Verizon deployed its FiOS TV in September, more than 33 percent of eligible homes signed up for the service. Facing new competition, incumbent cable provider Charter has lowered prices 25 percent.
Dave: that’s a good statistic. So, how many other instances can you find where that has happened? Oh, and how many smaller companies did Charter put out of business when it rolled into town?

Camp noted that the bill preserves municipalities’ right to collect up to a six percent fee from pay-TV providers. Part of this fee will go towards ensuring local communities can continue to offer public, educational and governmental (PEG) stations. The act also allows localities to retain control of their rights-of-way. Additionally, to protect consumer choice, the FCC is authorized under the legislation to step in if a locality tries to unfairly use its rights-of-way authority to block new competitors from entering a local market.
About this fee... Hmmm. In Mt. Pleasant, for instance, the local cable company offers public, educational and governmental (PEG) stations as part of their contract with the community and because (we often overlook this) WE own the airways and are allowing the communications companies to use them (the federal government collects the fees). So Dave is telling us that under this new legislation, we have the right (?) to collect a fee. We already had that right. He further tells us that the pay-TV providers will (apparently) hold back part of the fee as a charge for offering the same programs we used to receive as part of our contracts with pay-TV providers. So we are now actually paying for the formerly contractualized programming, is this what Dave is saying?

This press release shows how Camp continually tries to pull the wool over our eyes as he sides with business in screwing his constituents. This is another reason why we need to replace him with Mike Huckleberry this November.

RNC Memo to Dave Camp: Speaking Points

2006-06-03T10:37:00.000-07:00

Dave, we’re thrilled that you are running again and we’re sure you’ll be returning to represent Dow. . . that is, returning to represent your many constituents with the same. . . well, you know what we mean. You’re a great team player, Dave, and while we do have a few errant Representatives who sometimes stray from the party discipline, we always know we can count on you to say what we tell you to say, and vote as we tell you to vote.

You know that such loyalty pays off: look at how we kept India from extraditing your good friend, Andrew Liveris, the CEO of Dow, over that old accident that killed a few people in Bhopal all those years ago. Such a mess, that. Were you pleased that we had Rudy G. award him that vision-thing a few days ago? Rudy is such a stitch. When we asked him to trek all the way out to Montana, sorry, Michigan, to give the award to the CEO of Dow, he said, “Is that the company that brings good things to life?”

Well, we could go on, but we know you have important things to do, people to see, and golf to play. Are you actually going to campaign this year? You know, walk in parades, press the flesh and all that? We are assuming you are because the Democrats are running Mike Huckleberry against you and he is already on the road making some pretty strong remarks about economic issues and environmental quality. But we assume you’ll do as you’ve done for so many years: let the good folks at Dow know that you’re their boy, and don’t comment about anything Huckleberry has to say. He sounds like he’s done his homework, so we think it’s best that you don’t do or say anything that sounds like he struck a nerve.

We thought we would pass on some speaking points for you to use, as well as how to deal with some issues that Huckleberry might bring up. You know how pesky he can get about caring for the environment, the poor, health care, jobs, etc.

Before we get to the speaking points, you might not be aware that outside of Midland and Dow, there are a number of people are unhappy with you. They say you are something of a toady (some even call you “Rubber Stamp Camp,” which, while it has a certain catchy rhythm, is, well, disrespectful). If some hostile reporter asks you about this (although there don’t seem to be any of those in your region), it might be best if you don’t respond to that characterization; even a cursory look at your voting record shows that you have never strayed from the party line. Just say that you are in the House, working for your district, and you just happen to agree with everything the party says. Well, maybe not. Just say you won’t dignify those comments with an answer.

Now, on to the speaking points.
• You’ve reduced taxes. True, most of the reductions benefit the rich, but the middle class has saved tens of dollars. DO NOT talk about all the cuts to social services for families, the elderly, veterans (we got 600,000 of those slackers off their benefits while talking about seeing to the needs of the brave men and women who have fought, and are fighting, for us. Neat trick.).
• You tried to clean up Congressional ethics. Be sure to talk about the compromise you worked out so the Ethics Committee could never function (don’t say that last part; just stop at the compromise). DO NOT mention that the public outcry embarrassed the leadership into dumping your plan and reverting back to the old one.
• You’re very concerned about every young person having the opportunity to attend college. “College tuitions are out of control and need to be investigated.” That always gets applause. DO NOT mention that you voted to reduce aid to college students.
• You helped reform Medicare. Don’t talk too much about this because you probably don’t understand the various plans people have to choose from. Just say that there are bugs in any great program; they’ll eventually be worked out; you and Congress are working hard to correct the problems, or something along those lines. DO NOT mention that you’ll never have to worry about health insurance because you’ll have what all congressmen have: a great plan paid for by the taxpayers who might not be able to afford health insurance of any kind. Also, don’t talk about how the “reform” mostly benefited drug companies.
• You are concerned about the environment. And so is Dow. After all, Liveris said so when he got that award. DO NOT talk about your efforts to reduce the number of pollutants that Dow has to report to the EPA, or that you are in favor of drilling in the Artic so the U.S. can pull out six months worth of oil and screw up the environment there for the next few centuries. By the way, you’re a hunter, aren’t you? Be careful not to eat anything you shoot or fish you catch in the rivers and lakes in your area; Dow has polluted everything there, and we want you to come back to D.C. healthy. No glowing at your desk in the House as you sleep though sessions, please. Ha, ha.
• The economy. The economy is going through a rough patch. Rough patch, that’s good. Find some way to blame it on What’s Her Name, the Governor of Michigan . . . Granholm. It won’t hurt to infer that in addition to being at Democrat, she’s the first FEMALE governor of Michigan, and that things might be better if a man were at the helm. Women have trouble making the tough decisions, and being a Democrat on top of that, means she’s all soft and gooey about caring for the poor, social services for mothers and children, families out of work, stuff like that. DO NOT talk about how the tax cuts have led to the biggest deficits in history, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, and led to deep cuts in social services that the poor and elderly depend on.
• The war in Iraq. You’ll probably get a lot of questions about the war. Here’s how you respond: national security; 9/11; the War on Terror. That’s all. This has worked for President Bush for six years, and no one has caught on to the fact that he doesn’t have any other answers.
• Spying by the government. Big privacy issue. Response: national security; 9/11, the War on Terror. You might add: criticizing the government, and particularly the President, aids the enemy.
• More on the war. Key words: patriotism, sacrifice, love of country, support our troops–don’t criticize the President, Rumsfeld, or the war. If you are pushed: national security, 9/11, the War on Terror. You might throw in “If we don’t fight them there, we’ll be fighting them in our streets.”
• Why you’re not going to impeach the President? So he told a few. . . no, try again. So he misled the public about a couple of things like why he went to war, and why he’s spying on us, and a few other minor details. But Clinton lied about having sex! Don’t let people forget that! If people ask about all the other investigations that the Democrats want to hold, remind your constituents that people make mistakes, except Clinton, who lied about having sex (you can’t repeat that too many times).
• Family values. It’s okay to use the terms “family values,” “traditional family values,” or “American values,” but don’t go into any details about what they mean. We’ve tried to boil them down to outrage over homosexuality and abortion, and that has sold pretty well with the Jesus folk. It has also let us keep their attention off some other issues that Democrats get all weepy about, like the homeless, loss of jobs, health care, and the damn environment.
• Jack Abramoff. If any of your constituents read the newspapers, they might know about the $35,000 you received from Abramoff. Tell them that you didn’t know about the Abramoff connection, and that you thought the Tribes were giving you money because they liked you, even though you sat on the House committee that dealt with Indian affairs. Let them know you’re considering returning the money if it looks like there was some impropriety, which there wasn’t, of course. Don’t tell them you’ve been “thinking” about it for almost a year now.

We’ll stop there. This covers a lot of territory, and we don’t want to overload you. If you have any questions, or if Huckleberry gets to be a problem, remember that Karl Rove is working with us, and he always has terrific ideas. Did you hear about what he did when Bush was running for governor of Texas? Ann Richards was governor, and doing a pretty good job, so Karl had to find a way to turn things around. So he “discovered” that his office had been bugged! Big headlines all over Texas about how the Democrats had bugged his office. Got a bunch of people mad enough to elect Bush. It also sparked an FBI investigation; turned out that Karl had bugged his own office! Isn’t that a hoot? So just remember that we’re here for you.

What Dave Camp Doesn’t Want Us to Know

2006-05-23T09:23:00.000-07:00

At the end of 2005, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)–another (once) independent agency that Bush and his cronies have politicized–announced plans to limit the information that companies had to provide about toxic chemicals (mercury, lead, and dioxin, among others) that they had released into their communities. After all, it is expense for businesses to list the ways they are fouling the air, water, and food chains; besides, what communities really care or need to know?

Over the winter, 110,000 Americans submitted comments regarding the proposed change, urging Congress to step in and reject the proposed changes. Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) offered an amendment to prevent the changes. There were 231 Ayes (mostly Democrats, but also 48 Republicans) and 187 Noes (14 Democrats, and the rest Republicans). Care to guess how Dave Camp voted? Dave (I-Can’t-Believe-Dow-Would-Do-Anything-Bad-To-The-Environment) Camp, of course, voted with the Noes.

Dave Camp has demonstrated time and again that he does not care for the health and welfare of his constituents when their concerns conflict with Dow’s. Why should he; he hasn’t lived here for sixteen years! It‘s time to bring Dave home, home to breathe the air and drink the water he has helped Dow pollute. Maybe he could take a little time to go fishing in the many lakes and streams that flow through the area. Of course he won’t want to eat anything he catches, thanks to Dow. But “catch and release” is more sportsman-like anyway.

We need to bring Dave home and send Mike Huckleberry go to Congress to work on fixing the problems that Dave helped create. Maybe then Dave, and the rest of us who live here, can literally breathe a little easier.