Kuhl In Jerusalem–it’s a sin to tell a lie (ed. note: there appears to be no lie here, but the explanation is interesting)
Nine were at the Jerusalem Town Hall outside Branchport to meet with Rep. John Kuhl, Jr. No Press was there. Two there were from the Jerusalem Town Board, 4 were also at the Torrey meeting 2 weeks ago. The parking lot was not plowed, and he called to say he would be a few minutes (about 10 minutes) late.
Since this was suppose to be a meeting where he came to hear our opinion, I wanted to tell him my concern. A friend of mine video taped the event. This is what I said,
“I’m concerned about the lack of faith we have in our government in general. There was a little ray of sunshine when the House decided to change the rules with lobbyists, but then I noticed that you voted against that.
He quickly replied, “No, that’s not true.” (ed. note: see Rottenchester’s comments below explaining why Kuhl is not technically lying here)
I was dumbfounded.
I was pretty sure that he had voted against the rule which limited what lobbyists can do, but I could have been wrong. I didn’t have the documents right there with me.
Kuhl went to say,
“No, I fully subscribe to changing the rules, lengthening the period of time so people can’t go through the revolving door and go out on the other side. Totally eliminate all the gifts as far as I’m concerned. You know, it’s just a detriment. I was part of the process in the Albany scene on restoring what I call integrity there and actually re-writing some of the requirements there to have reporting of members as to what expenditures were carried on in their offices and that sort of thing. So I’m – full disclosure. No question about it.”
I went home, looked up the Resolution on the Office of the Clerk’s site, and checked my facts. In fact, on the final vote on the Resolution to change the House rules, which includes the rules on Lobbyists, EVERY REPUBLICAN present voted against it. Everyone.
Kuhl lied to me. Maybe is subscribes to change the rules, but on January 5, 2007, he voted against doing that.
That was my concern–we have lost faith with our government. We can not trust them. Even at a Town Meeting in little ole Branchport, New York.
I have my documents, and my ducks in a row. I will go to another Town Meeting and confront him. I also want to know how the Bob Seger concert was.
Other questions dealt with Negative Campaign Ads (He doesn’t do them–they are not negative if he is reacting to what his opponent said.) When he was asked about the Attorney General firing the Federal Attorneys, he threw the question back with, “What’s your opinion?” The same when asked about the War. My favorite quote of the day was, “I guess it is the Attorney in me that wants to know all of the facts before making a decision.”
If I were him, I wouldn’t boast being an attorney.
Related posts:
This is a complex vote and Kuhl is telling the truth.
The ethics reform was part of the rules of the House. Adoption of the rules of the House is a party-line vote by tradition. This year, the leadership decided to break up the votes on the rules so Members could endorse reforms and still vote with their party at the end [1]. The leadership allowed votes on the specific titles of the bill (see [2]), and Kuhl voted for the ethics reform title ([3]).
Note that Kuhl can make this claim because the Democrats structured the vote so he could. It would have been good of him to explain it to you, since it’s not obvious at all.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001233.html
[2] votes on titles: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/bills/h_res_6/
titles: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.6:
[3] http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/7/
Got this via the contact form from py:
Thanks for the explaination. I went to the Town meeting in Watkins Glen
(Town of Dix) this morning. When he came in, he recognized me quickly,
welcomed me and the others. I had with me the summary of the Resolution along how each representative voted. Although there were only about 7 or 8 other people there, the discussion were serious, long, and there was a good amount of give and take. The time went by quickly, and since I was out of my county, and have seen him 3 times in two weeks, I let the dialogue continue. At the end, I gave his aide my papers and had filled out the card.
I really didn’t think that he would out-and out lie about something so
easily checked. I didn’t confront him in Jerusalem because I knew there
were numberous votes, and I may have had my facts mixed up. Thank you for your note and explaining it to me, and the rest of the readers.
I guess it is kind of like, “I voted for it before I voted against it.”
Or “I thought they were happy eating lobster in Iraq before I decided invading Iraq was like stepping on a landmine.”