Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Live Blogging at Congressman Ramstad Event

Bookmark and Share

12:00 pm. Jim Ramstad's speech today is entitled "Life as a Centrist in the New Congress." Ramstad has touted his moderate, centrist credentials in recent years, and there is evidence in his voting record to bolster this claim. In 2006, the Republican congressman was rated fairly dead center -- the 199th most liberal and 231st most conservative member of Congress by National Journal.

12:10. Ramstad's power ranking was #247, as determined by Congress.org. Ramstad begins his speech by touting Minnesota's independent, centrist pedigree. Ramstad recounts how after the November 2006 election, when Democrats took control of the House, he received several phone calls from prominent Democrats who expressed how they wished to work with him during the coming session. He serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, Health Subcommittee and Oversight Committee.

12:15 pm. The Congressman has been a strong advocate of health and chemical dependence funding issues, as well as veteran's issues. Ramstad served in the U.S. Army Reserves.

12:20 pm. Ramstad remarks about the bipartisanship that was demonstrated in the House after the I-35W bridge collapse earlier this month. The Congressman lists some of the bipartisan legislation on which he has worked. For example, Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and Ramstad co-sponsored a bill permitting Liberian residents to stay in the United States (Ramstad's district hosts the second biggest Liberian community in the country). Overall, Ramstad seems to be painting the level of bipartisanship in the House with a positive tone, recounting the common ground Democrats and Republicans share. It will be interesting to see whether or not the audience asks Ramstad questions about the level of partisan rancor which seems to dominate politics today.

12:30 pm. Ramstad notes an average of 62 Republicans voted with the Democrats first 6 bills passed during the Democrat's first "100 hours" after they took control in 2007. The Congressman calls the Democrat-led minimum wage increase as "long overdue." Ramstad becomes impassioned when describing his support for federally funded stem cell research and derides Republicans who politicize the issue by conflating it with abortion.

12:35 pm. Ramstad states there is a political price to pay for being a centrist. He remarks he - and other GOP moderates - will be left out of the Party's leadership positions. Ramstad is a member of the "Tuesday group" -- GOP moderates who meet to strategize how they will use their voting bloc.

12:40 pm. Ramstad was one of three dozen Republicans to vote against the President's "No Child Left Behind" program. He states there was more pressure on him to vote with his party on that issue in all his 27 years of legislative experience.

12:45 pm. Ramstad lists the top priorities facing the country including health care, child hunger, chemical dependence, and education. Among these is global warming, which the Congressman states "Is real." He states these problems are too big to govern with politics as usual. Ramstads states "We must govern from the center whenever possible."

12:50 pm. In a question and answer session, Ramstad explains that bipartisanship is not discussed much by members of Congress because they do not want to alienate their base. When asked why he supports so many programs that call for the increased role of government, Ramstad explains there are three roles of government: 1) To make people safe. 2) To provide services that are best provided collectively, ad 3) To help those who cannot help themselves.

12:55 pm. When asked how he reconciles being a tax-cutter and also an advocate for increased social programs, Ramstad acknowledges his support for tax cuts - claiming the 2003 tax cuts saved a few million jobs. He specifically address how the government will pay for these social programs, however, so the moderator, Center Director Larry Jacobs, asks the question a second time. Ramstad claims there is enough waste in the federal government's budget to pay for them.

1:05 pm. On Iraq, Ramstad wishes to codify the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommendations. Ramstad was one of 10 moderate Republicans who went to the White House a few months ago to tell the president they were not happy with the direction of the Iraq war and, partiuclarly, how the Iraqi government was governing (not meeting benchmarks etc.). Ramstad is against setting a date for the withdrawl of troops, and he says Congress should not "micro manage the war."

Previous post: Smart Politics Live Blogging at Congressman Ramstad Event
Next post: SD 2008 Election Forecast: Will Momentum Towards the Democrats Continue?

1 Comment


  • I have been thinking about this blog since last night. It seems to me that there were very good points made about Ramstad reaching across the aisle whenever it is possible to do so. Providing for parity of mental health coverage and helping Liberians and bipartisan support for replacing the 35W bridge make good examples. Clearly, a good politician won't make enemies unnecessarily, since there is always hope for finding areas of common concern.

    It doesn't seem to me that this approach is necessarily "centrist" however. A collegial congressman might be found anywhere along the political spectrum...left, right or center. Wellstone makes a good example from the left; he was respected, even admired by many who disagreed with him completely. (I can't think of any good examples from the right at this point, but I'm sure it's just the temporary influence of Karl Rove which blinds me.)

    However, its seem a huge mistake to go the next step and claim that Rep Ramstad's "centrist" votes have been good for Minnesota. Let me give a few examples: On 8/5 he voted to restore billions for the "star wars" program. On 8/4, he voted in favor of warrantless wiretapping. On 8/1 he voted against children's healthcare. On 7/12 he voted against responsible redeployment out of Iraq. On 6/2 he voted for more funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons. On 5/24 he voted for an additional $100 billion for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. On 5/17 he also voted against requiring additional congressional approval for war against Iran. On 5/10 he voted against redeployment out of Iraq. On 5/2 he voted not to override Bush's veto of the Iraq timeline for withdrawal.

    Some people may dismiss these votes as centered around the issue of war. They may claim that this focus is too narrow, that a congressman casts many votes on many issues.

    To me, however, it is simple thinking about the big picture. Even if a person has absolutely no opinion about the needless deaths of 3,700 American troops, a million Iraqis and over 1,000 mercenaries, you have to wonder where the money is coming from, for those programs Ramstad likes. After we spend up to two trillion dollars pouring our nation's blood and treasure into the sands of Iraq, what money will be left for mental health coverage and fixing our crumbling infrastructure?

    I am delighted that Jim Ramstad is an affable person who "works and plays well with others" (as we kindergarten teachers say), but I sincerely believe that his so-called centrist votes are contributing to the downfall of our country.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting