PDA

View Full Version : An article about my Congressman - I am proud!



Wayne Smith
04-08-2013, 07:43 AM
Scott posted this this morning. or at least I got it in my e-mail from him. One Congressman for whom I will continue to vote.

By: Ron Fournier
April 4, 2013

“I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe it,” Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia griped over lunch last month at the GOP-run Capitol Hill Club. “All I did was agree to fly aboard Air Force One and talk to the president and for that I got …”

“Hammered,” said Chris Connelly, chief of staff to the Republican lawmaker. “Hammered,” repeated Rigell. “Hammered by my own people.”

Before we could finish our conversation about the dangers of moderation in modern-day politics, Rigell’s cell phone vibrated on the white-clothed table. “It’s Rand Paul,” he said, jumping up from his chair to take a scheduled call from the tea party star, a freshman senator from Kentucky. “Hello, senator,” Rigell said, walking away from our table for privacy. “Can we talk guns?”

I didn’t know it at the time but I had happened to catch Rigell at his career’s most important hour, precisely as he sought to extricate himself from a political vise. On the federal budget and guns, Rigell stayed true to his conservative roots but had the uncommon audacity to insist upon facts, reason and common sense.

And for that, he was punished.

This column is not just about Rigell. This one congressman’s tale is sadly emblematic of what ails Washington today: hyper-partisanship in politics and new media; powerful and unaccountable interest groups; vast amounts of undocumented money; and a Congress corrupted by the system.

Trouble began for Rigell in late February when he received an invitation from the White House to fly aboard Air Force One and attend an event in his district. President Obama planned to discuss the effects of so-called sequestration cuts, his latest attempt to blame the budget standoff on Rigell’s party.

“Please tell the president I accept with gratitude,” Rigell told the White House aide.

Rigell knew he would be criticized by fellow conservatives for giving Obama political cover. Right-wing ideologues were already skeptical of the second-term lawmaker because he had disavowed an anti-tax pledge, voted to raise the debt ceiling and opposed holding Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt (one of only two Republicans to do so). Rigell represents one of the dwindling few swing districts left.

But he agreed to travel with Obama for two reasons. First, he wanted to tell the president to his face that the White House had failed to lead on negotiations. Obama needs to honestly embrace spending cuts and entitlement reforms, Rigell insisted, in order to extract any new revenue from Republicans.

Secondly, Rigell holds a quaint view that, until recent past, was universally accepted in Washington. “He is,” Rigell said, “my president.”

Conservative commentators, their numbers and power dramatically increased in the last decade or so, derided Rigell as a sap, a sellout and a “RINO” (“Republican in name only"). Negative calls and email poured into his office. Still, Rigell was confident he could reason with his constituents, aided by a detailed chart on the federal budget that he carted to town halls and local media interviews.

Then, a second shoe dropped. Coincidentally or not, two days after his trip with Obama, the gun lobby launched a harsh, effective and factually bogus attack on Rigell. The National Association for Gun Rights aired radio ads and sent direct-mail fliers that falsely accused Rigell of backing a federal registry system and working hand-in-hand with Obama to seize guns.

Rigell’s great crime, other than riding Air Force One, was to sponsor a benign anti-trafficking bill that would outlaw “straw purchasing,” the act of providing firearms to those who are unable to legally purchase weapons themselves. He is, after all, a lifelong NRA member with an A-minus rating from the group.

The NAGR positions itself to the right of the NRA, uncompromising on any gun regulation. Like many left- and right-wing interest groups, it operates in the dark and feeds on fear: Voters in Rigell’s district do not know who funds the organization.

Rigell soon learned that one source of revenue was Paul, at least indirectly. The NAGR sent an email to potential donors that opened with a note from the Kentucky senator urging recipients to support the “fine folks” at NAGR.

Rigell and his team made three assumptions. First, that Paul didn’t know about the attacks on fellow Republicans (the NAGR also criticized House Majority Leader Eric Cantor). Second, that Paul was aiding the group so that he could tap into its mailing list for his political future (he is considering a presidential run). Third, that Paul would condemn the group’s action once he found out about them.

So he asked Paul to call him – “Can we talk about guns?” In that telephone call at lunch, Paul told Rigell he didn’t know about the NAGR attacks and would look into them. After an exchange of notes, emails and telephone calls between the two staffs, Paul refused Rigell's request to denounce the group.

“It was,” Rigell said, “just indifference.” In Rigell’s eyes, Paul had failed a character test.

“I did not seek this – to have a public disagreement with him but the consequences of where we’re heading as a country are very serious and we’re all in this together,” Rigell said.

Rigell is not the president or even a potential presidential candidate. But he is asking profound questions of Obama, of Paul, of his constituents and of us – all voters. Is compromise and progress still possible in Washington? Are both parties forever driven to the extremes? Will common sense, comity and transparency regain their currency in Washington? Do facts matter?

“I cannot serve nor can I lead by fear,” Rigell told me this week. “At some point, I will be making my last ride home from Washington. I don’t know when that will be but I have got to know that I’ve done all I could to get this country on the right path.” This is the modest goal of a modest man stuck in a system that punishes common sense.

41 mag fan
04-08-2013, 07:59 AM
Just because he rode with obama doesn't make him a traitor to the right side. Now if he was like our Senator we had, that got voted out, he was against the stimulus back in obamas first term, but took a ride on the jet and came off of it, supporting the stimulus.
Corruption in Washington is at an all time high, and never in history has the 2 parties, been at odds as they are now.
It's just a shame it's these 2 parties who will eventually cause this great country to fall.
The 2 parties went from working together for the common good, to working against each other to gain the top seat ion gov't.

Wayne Smith
04-08-2013, 08:57 AM
That's exactly what Scott is trying to fight against. After all, he is MY president, too. I ought to be working to get him to recognize that, not ignore it.

462
04-08-2013, 10:55 AM
Two questions:

How do you work with someone, or a party, that has been taken over by radical leftists who want to turn America into a socialist/communist state?

Why should I compromise my political principles, that are founded in the Constitution, not some Utopian ideal and radical agenda, just so it could be said that I want to work for the common good?

I, once, took an oath to defend American against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Neither the passage of time nor life's circumstances will negate that oath.

runfiverun
04-08-2013, 11:14 AM
there are two different party's fighting for the same reason there is a leftist communist progressive movement and a bunch of old fashioned guys clinging to guns and their bibles.
if one side wasn't fighting the other then we would all be standing in line for our rations.
coming off as a republican working with the president sounds like a republican sell out to me.
he is supposed to be there voicing your views and fighting for your rights, not caving in to the leftists communists.
unless you voted in a leftist communist and those are your views.

Phoenix
04-08-2013, 11:30 AM
I think they should change the name to "the party of no" i would support that 100% I am sick of redundant, overbearing laws, that don't do anything but give the gov a means to nail everyone to the cross when they want you. People really don't realize that EVERYONE can be thrown in prison if they want to. The only safe course for anyone is to stay off the radar. However you do that is up to you, If you don't stay off the radar you will be shot down. I have no problem being uncompromising. Tell me what laws need passed right now? The ONLY thing they need to do is repeal stuff that is screwing up the country and cut spending about 60%. Don't need new taxes, don't need new rules, don't need more buerocracy. The only thing we need is reform that will reduce spending and tax burden. I honestly cannot understand how we still don't have a balanced budget 16.7 trillion in debt and we are overspending by more than 1 trillion dollars. it is a mess and we are in for a cataclismic meltdown soon.

If you haven't seen this you should look at it.
http://usdebtclock.org/

1Shirt
04-08-2013, 11:31 AM
Three words: NEVER TRUST LIBERALS!!!!
1Shirt!

BoolitSchuuter
04-08-2013, 12:51 PM
Why shouldn't the Right take a stand and not compromise?
Three things I've noticed about the Leftists (No ,they ARE NOT the party of FDR anymore);
1. They NEVER take "NO" for an answer.
2. They don"t stop till they win or wear the other side down like the bunch of over dependent, spoiled, whiny, little selfish B@$t*%s they are.
3. Compromise in their eyes is abhorred and is considered a sign of weakness.

shooterg
04-08-2013, 01:37 PM
Straw purchases already illegal. Any more legislation will be used to make it even harder on gunowners. "True conservative roots" ? And voted to raise the debt ?
I'm thinking he is new, he's probably a straight up guy, but I couldn't support him.
And the NRA's rating are famously "liberal" .

MtGun44
04-08-2013, 05:59 PM
Sorry, Not my president.

NO compromise. We have been compromising away our rights since 1968 and I
am DONE with it. We need to be reversing these laws, like the sunset of
the assault weapon ban, not discussing how much more we are going to
lose.

IMO, even DISCUSSING it with a Marxist gun grabber like Zero is
proof that you don't take it seriously enough. Probably because he is busy
worrying about being "reasonable". Being "reasonable" and compromising
will get still you eventually screwed totally, just a bit more slowly.

Congressman sounds like a nice guy but a good bit naďve.

OK, how about some REAL compromising:

If you get your CCW with a full background check it is good ANYWHERE,
ANY STATE, in court, on an airplane, White House, ANYWHERE that the public can go,
ANY store, restaurant, etc - except private property not open to the public
that is posted.

WE compromise and LOSE ground. NEVER manage to compromise and
GAIN back our rights even a tiny bit.

Where does it say that compromise is ALWAYS in the direction of more
restrictions, never looser?



Bill

Phoenix
04-09-2013, 12:43 PM
WE compromise and LOSE ground. NEVER manage to compromise and
GAIN back our rights even a tiny bit.

Now that is the kicker right there. It is a one way street, doesnt matter who is bargaining one way street.

The rights in question were never designed to be compromised on. I would like to bring back to life the framers of the constitution and see what they have to say. I think 100% of them would act like sir henry wallace.

Doc Highwall
04-09-2013, 02:08 PM
Keep your friends close, keep your enemy's closer!

popper
04-09-2013, 03:15 PM
Let's make a deal pols. were around long before '68.