Stark Raving Mad

Opinion Journal ^ | 5/10/04 | James Taranto

[pookie18]

On Friday we wondered why 49 mostly left-wing Democrats had voted against a House resolution deploring the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and also supporting the "courageous and honorable members of the Armed Forces." Rep. Pete Stark of Fremont, Calif. (midway between Oakland and San Jose), has offered an answer of sorts.

KSFO, a San Francisco talk radio station, has printed a letter Stark received from a constituent, Daniel Dow, who objected to Stark's vote:

I urge you to stop your contemptuous display of bitter partisanship and your politicization of this War. Your actions are very divisive and destructive to the morale of our troops and the morale of our nation. I know that a majority of the population of the 13th Congressional District are very strong in their support of our soldiers and in their support of the War in iraq [sic]. Your "NO" vote today reflects that you are way out of touch with the people of this district.

In response, Dow, himself a veteran, got a phone message from Stark, which he supplied to the station. You can listen here (it's in WAV form), but we've also transcribed it:

[bootless]

Cool! Was it in the second hour?

[pookie18]

Yes, the Ssgt was only on for about 10 minutes.

[bootless]

Thanks!

[no-s]

Well, odds are Ron Paul's reason are something along the lines of resolutions being a waste of time and money, and unconstitutional too. He introduced a declaration of war against Iraq in the House because:
"I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions," Paul stated yesterday after a committee hearing. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

[CWOJackson]

"Well, odds are Ron Paul's reason are something..."

Odds are Jim McDermott has his reasons as well.

Facts are, both Jim McDermott and Ron Paul decided they would not support our troops.

[no-s]

I can't say I am defending Ron Paul. But it irritates me to see you lump him into the same class as that inarticulate twerp Stark. Or even McDermott. Ron Paul is in a class by himself and his integrity is beyond reproach. He's not a fair-weather fan in this game, nor is his rhetoric empty and devoid of conviction...so why do you bring it up at all?

[CWOJackson]

In a class by himself? No, 49 liberal Democrats voted along with him to not support our troops.

[no-s]

So why are you focusing on Ron Paul and not the 49 liberal democrats? Hmmmm? And what does the resolution have to do with supporting the troops, anyway - does it have the force of law?

The fact that democrats can't articulate a coherent rationale for their dissent is more relevant than jumping on other conservatives because they don't support feel-good resolutions.

[hummingbird]

Is Stark the guy who angrily called someone on the floor a 'fruitcake' last year?

[CWOJackson]

"So why are you focusing on Ron Paul and not the 49 liberal democrats?"

Well maybe because this thread is about Congressional people who refuse to support our troops. Those 49 weren't alone.

[pookie18]

Is Stark the guy who angrily called someone on the floor a 'fruitcake' last year?

Among other things...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92537,00.html

[no-s]

Excuse me? did you even read the article?

Dan, this is Congressman Pete Stark, and I just got your fax. And you don't know what you're talking about. So if you care about enlisted people, you wouldn't have voted for that thing either. But probably somebody put you up to this, and I'm not sure who it was, but I doubt if you could spell half the words in the letter, and somebody wrote it for you. So I don't pay much attention to it. But I'll call you back later and let you tell me more about why you think you're such a great goddamn hero and why you think that this generals [sic] and the Defense Department, who forced these poor enlisted guys to do what they did, shouldn't be held to account. That's the issue. So if you want to stick it to a bunch of enlisted guys, have your way. But if you want to get to the bottom of people who forced this awful program in Iraq, then you should understand more about it than you obviously do. Thanks.

[CWOJackson]

Did I read the article? You mean the one that starts with this sentence?

"On Friday we wondered why 49 mostly left-wing Democrats had voted against a House resolution deploring the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and also supporting the "courageous and honorable members of the Armed Forces."

Yep, I read it.

[hummingbird]

"'Fruitcake' means inept, crazy, a nut cake to me," Stark explained.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92537,00.html

Well, I guess I could buy that, pookie18, but how did he finesse his explanation on:

Republican sources also claim that during the chaotic scene in the committee, Stark fired another gay slur in the direction of Chairman Thomas. The word is too vulgar to print in full, but the last half of it is "sucker."

He once called Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson "a whore," and said former Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan is "a disgrace to his race."

LOL...Stark sounds like a real gent, doesn't he?! I'm waiting for some Republicans to behave the same way so we can laud them like the Dems do Stark...LOL! Thanks for the reference to FOXNews!

[pookie18]

Well, I guess I could buy that, pookie18, but how did he finesse his explanation on:

Republican sources also claim that during the chaotic scene in the committee, Stark fired another gay slur in the direction of Chairman Thomas. The word is too vulgar to print in full, but the last half of it is "sucker."

He was a chicken farmer? ;-)

[Republican Wildcat]

The Democrats have placed this guy in charge of a number of their debates on the House floor.

[hummingbird]

Yeah, that must be it! Chicken farmer, it is...

[hummingbird]

The Democrats have placed this guy in charge of a number of their debates on the House floor.

They must be really proud of him...what a great example for the "yewts" who might consider government service...

[jmc813]

Facts are, both Jim McDermott and Ron Paul decided they would not support our troops.

As much as you guys from the liberal wing of the GOP keep repeating that, it won't make it true.

[jmc813]

So why are you focusing on Ron Paul and not the 49 liberal democrats?

Because big-government folks like Jackson see Ron Paul as much more of a threat than any liberal.