Greg Walden Update
Jeff Alworth
This just in: maybe.
For the past few days, various readers and bloggers have been trying to find out if Oregon GOP Congressman Greg Walden voted with his party's caucus on an ethics law rule that would allow Tom DeLay to remain majority leader even if indicted for fraud. Torrid Joe has the answer:
Just spoke to "Valerie Henry." She claims Walden was not in the room at the time, having stepped out to "speak to some Oregonians." However, she did finally commit to saying that Walden would have voted "yea," after saying that he felt "innocent until guilty" should apply in this case.
So now we at least can work from that perspective--that Walden approved changing the rule.
For those of you who live in District 2 and find this disturbing, you may direct your inquiries to:
843 East Main Street, Suite 400
Medford, OR 97504
Ph: (541) 776-4646
Toll free from 541 area code: (800) 533-3303
Fax: (541) 779-0204
Thanks, Joe!
![]() |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:23 a.m.
Nov 22, '04
thanks Jeff. Look--I'm a news stringer!
Another part of any comments you make, should involve the $5K Walden received from DeLay's PAC this last cycle. It might be nice to ask him if he plans to return it, should DeLay be convicted.
Nov 22, '04
If we are going to start collecting tidbits of information on Rep. Walden for letters to the editor or for use by his opponent in 2006, look no further than last week's spending bill. Did he vote to allow the chairmen of the Appropriations Committees and their staff assistants to examine Americans' income tax returns? How do voters in red counties feel about politicians having access to their IRS files? Inquiring minds want to know.
1:30 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
Wait a minute, Greg stepped out of the room just as they were going to take a controversial vote? Seriously, this is straddle-the-fences time.
If it becomes an issue in his likely campaign for Governor, he'll likely say flatly, "I didn't vote for the DeLay Rule..."
But we now know that's bogus. Good work, BlueBloggers.
1:41 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
It is incredibly cool that Joe tracked this down--when apparently, the mainstream press snoozed. It represents a kind of accountability we used to want the press demand from our leaders. Now we can demand it ourselves.
As for the Walden staff--you'd think that haven been given a long weekend to figure out how to handle the vote, they would have come up with something better than the answer they gave Joe. I mean, at least try for plausible. This having stepped out to 'speak to some Oregonians'" business rings so false.
1:50 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
The mainstream press indeed did snooze. I began passing this information on to Jeff Mapes at the Oregonian early Friday. To his credit, he was responsive and appeared interested in the story--and said he would pass the info on to the DC politics bureau person. When I emailed today, Mapes said he didn't know what the guy had done with the info. I also sent email tips to most of the papers in his district, with nary a reply (except for one woman who said she had no idea what I was even talking about). :rolleyes:
However, as to his having "stepped out"--ordinarily I'd be suspicious, but it appears from other members' comments that an unannounced vote was indeed taken, and it's not inconceivable that several were out of the room at the time. In fact, since Walden is a relatively moderate Republican, it's possible that it was taken BECAUSE he (and others) were out of the room.
1:51 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
oh, and thanks for the kudos Jeff--if you want to praise something, praise free national calling minutes in most cell phone plans these days. :)
Nov 22, '04
disclaimer: this post is not a critique of Torrid Joe.
“Just spoke to 'Valerie Henry.' She claims Walden was not in the room at the time, having stepped out to 'speak to some Oregonians.' However, she did finally commit to saying that Walden would have voted 'yea,' after saying that he felt 'innocent until guilty' should apply in this case.
So now we at least can work from that perspective--that Walden approved changing the rule.”
Disclaimer: I am not trying to rain on anyone parade here; I admire the tenacity of Torrid Joe in his quest for an answer.
Having said that, the answer raises more questions that require similar follow-up.
Jeff states: “It is incredibly cool that Joe tracked this down--when apparently, the mainstream press snoozed. It represents a kind of accountability we used to want the press demand from our leaders. Now we can demand it ourselves.”
If we are going to demand accountability of ourselves that we would from the press, then we can’t accept the answer given to Torrid Joe as The answer. It’s merely the beginning of the trail.
Journalists have to answer every question of: who, what, when, where, why and how (the W’s and H’s) pertaining to a story. In this case:
Who is Valerie Henry? What does she do? Is she quoting Walden when she says he would’ve voted “yeah” for whatever reason -- or is that her assumption based on knowing him? what was the context of his quote if she quoted him? Why was Walden not in the room? Was it, in fact, an announced vote or was it unannounced? Did he know about the vote prior to stepping out of the room? Who were the Oregonians that he was talking to? Who else was out of the room? What is the policy on voting when Congressmen are absent from the room? etc.
Without answering these questions in-depth, we get reactions such as Kari’s:
“Wait a minute, Greg stepped out of the room just as they were going to take a controversial vote? Seriously, this is straddle-the-fences time. If it becomes an issue in his likely campaign for Governor, he'll likely say flatly, ‘I didn't vote for the DeLay Rule...’ But we now know that's bogus. Good work, BlueBloggers.”
Actually, we don’t ‘know’ any such thing, Kari. And the reason that we don’t know it is because this is just a Beginning to finding the answer originally requested.
Torrid Joe – in no way do I mean to imply that your research is not an impressive beginning, nor do I mean to undermine your time and efforts in obtaining the response that you obtained.
I am merely stating that if we are going to hold ourselves accoutable to the same standards we expect from our media sources, then we need to remain objective until all the W’s and H’s are addressed. Then, and only then – will the true answer emerge.
3:10 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
Actually, reporters write these kinds of stories all the time. I'd argue that they should write more of them, not fewer. When a politician acts in an official capacity as a representative of Oregonians, we have a right to know. If that politician isn't going to be forthcoming, we can run with a story that says he's not forthcoming.
What we've posted here is factual and transparent--we know only what they're saying. That in itself is a story. If the Walden people were functioning as responsible representatives of the public interest, none of this would be a topic of discussion. But they're dissembling, and we're just chronicling that.
I would absolutely LOVE an official response from Greg Walden. Why do you think it is that he refuses to give one?
3:17 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
I certainly agree that a more fully explicative answer to the situation surrounding his non-vote and his position on the issue regardless, is required. A simple confirmation of my conversation would be swell. However, let me be clear on what was said: she offered that while he did not vote, he felt that DeLay should not be treated as if he were guilty based simply on an indictment. When I reframed it as a matter of relaxing standards that once had been set when the other party was in power, she wouldn't sign on to that perspective. But as a result, I reframed again and asked very explicitly whether his vote would have been yea or nay. She said, in a one word answer, "yea."
I certainly understand the hunger for more information surrounding my conversation, and I appreciate that I was not being criticized by allehseya's post--but the response of the staffer was unambiguous: he would have voted for the change. I feel entirely comfortable telling interested parties to draft commentary to the Representative, based on the presumption of a yea vote.
3:42 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
Wait a minute, Greg stepped out of the room just as they were going to take a controversial vote? Seriously, this is straddle-the-fences time.
For what it's worth, if anyone's been following the DeLay Rule story on Talking Points Memo, a fair number of Repubs walked out just before the vote on the rule. It's fairly evident at this point that it was a deliberate strategy many of them used.
3:58 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
b!x, much as I may want to agree with that, I can't. I have followed the story at TPM closely, and I don't know that you can make any definitive statements about what happened.
They could have
a) legitimately missed the vote by accident b) walked out c) missed the vote, but by design from leadership d) not missed it, but CLAIM they did, since it's an unrecorded vote
which is why whether they were there or not, isn't the issue. It's their position on the rule.
Nov 22, '04
You can run with a story stating that he isnt forthcoming -- sure.
But if youre going to talk us about adopting "standards" of media -- you cant insinuate: "--that Walden approved changing the rule." merely because some chick named Valerie gave her two cents worth -- you have to cite the source and the validity of the source being one -- that is IF you are talking about holding ourselves accountable to standards the media has "lost".
Nor can you insinuate or draw the conclusion that Greg was "straddling the fence" --- merely because he was out of the room at the time.
Hell, you can't even assume that "Greg stepped out of the room just as they were going to take a controversial vote" --- without SOME fact or quote from a valid source that serves to record the timing of the two events!
But hey. You're right, Jeff. The media does write, feature and cover stories like that all the time -- and that's the Problem with media, in my opinion.
This, however is a blog and therefore subjective by nature --- so Joe, Kari, you and all the rest of us arent held to objective 'standards' -- untainted by bias and conjecture -- we can come to any conclusion that we want and defend it with the zeal and condemnation of O'Reilly and Limbagh squared.
-- but please, lets not pat ourselves on the back for maintaning that 'standard' the media has "lost" and that we revive only here, in blogosphere, blogistan (whatever term is hip these days) because conjecture, accusations based on conjecture, misleading the reader, providing misinformation and/or NO information is what's Wrong with media.
Torrid Joe sought information, as Media should, yes. It was a good beginning. I only raise the points that I raise if we are going to pursue the notion of holding ourselves accountable to standards throughout this thread to arrive at a real 'answer'.
The Dragnet detectives said it best: "Just the facts, Ma'am. Only the facts."
4:05 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
which is why whether they were there or not, isn't the issue. It's their position on the rule
Both are relevant, because an intentional walk may be an indication of someone who supported the rule but didn't want to be backed into a corner to take public responsibility for that position.
And the sheer numbers of people who left the room -- I just don't see how it's some sort of random coincidence. These are politicians and I certainly have the right to be skeptical of their actions.
Nov 22, '04
disclaimer: I sent the above prior to refreshing my screen and reading Torrid Joes post -- which does clarify some things except who Valerie is and whether she is quoting Walden himself or guestimating his vote.
Nov 22, '04
An articulate statement of some of my thoughts.
The problem is -- unless the guy is in a witness chair subject to cross-examination, we will never get a straight answer.
However, if you get just a few pieces of the puzzle, one is certainly free to speculate specifically about what the rest of the picture looks like and what possible reasons ($5k??) one might have acted so.
Hell - the Rs used that time after time to put Kerry on the defensive in the campaign.
The shame is -- that unless the "mainstream" media brings it out and speculates, there will never be enough heat to (a) make the guy sweat or (b) the public take notice. After all, the Bachelor finale is this week....
Does this contact have freedom to follow up on Joe's information? Does he have desire to?
4:27 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
Valerie is a staffer working for the Congressman, I presume. For what it's worth, she offered no qualifications on her statement, to the effect of "this is how I think/assume he might have voted," or "I don't know for sure, but...". I asked would he have voted yea or nay, and she said simply, yea.
In any case, one would suspect that if folks do in fact use my report in order to address Rep Walden with it, surely they will either get a denial or an implicit confirmation of that fact. But again, I have no problem at all with anyone presuming that Walden would indeed have voted for it.
4:31 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
OK, here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/staff/?id=493
Valerie Henry is an official member of his staff, handling legislative assistant duties in the health, education and taxation areas.
Nov 22, '04
"Both are relevant, because an intentional walk may be an indication of someone who supported the rule but didn't want to be backed into a corner to take public responsibility for that position."
. . . this brings me to my earlier question regarding the policy of a vote passing when there are no votes or missing congressmen at the time of the vote . . . and how that affects the outcome of the vote passing or not ... etc.
sorry if this is a stupid question
Nov 22, '04
Thanks for clarifying, Torrid Joe.
5:02 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
'When Republicans had a chance to stand up for their law-abiding constituents and face their leadership over whether an indicted Congressman should continue to perform his duties, __ walked out of the room.
Demand accountability from your elected representatives in Congress - call 1-800-###-####'
I'd love to know what Gordon Smith was doing when the Ernest Istook Tax Privacy Violation Act of 2004 was brought to the floor, but that's for a different thread, I guess...
5:52 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
If we are going to start collecting tidbits of information on Rep. Walden for letters to the editor or for use by his opponent in 2006, look no further than last week's spending bill.
and
I'd love to know what Gordon Smith was doing when the Ernest Istook Tax Privacy Violation Act of 2004 was brought to the floor, but that's for a different thread, I guess...
Voting yea along with the rest of the Oregon contingent sans Blumenauer who did not vote. If we're going to call Walden and Smith to the carpet on that one, we have to call Hooley, Wu, DeFazio and Wyden as well. What irks me more about those was not that they voted for something that they didn't know they were voting for (for the love of God, doesn't anyone read these things first?), but that they did know there was anti-abortion language in the bill and voted for it anyway. Thanks for standing up for choice, guys.
Nov 22, '04
cc,
The republican gold standard in electoral campaigns is that it is fair game to attack an incumbernt for anything that was in an omnibus spending bill he voted for, regardless of the fact that he was actually for or against that specific part or if the party making the attack was in favor or against. Democrats voting with most republicans in the 80s for reducing waste in our defence budget get easily attacked today by those same republicans as wimpish doves. I don't see why republicans should not be held to their own flawed standard.
Plus, in this case it was a republican committee chairman included some scary stuff that frankly was not germane. The other republican congresspeople either did not know about it (and they are incompetent if they don't fix the system so that thigs like that don't slip by again) or they knew about it and still voted for it.
As far as I know, the whole senate had a fit when they found out about this, so Smith and Wyden get out without any points taken against them. But Wu will get an earful from me about it. Doesn't he have anyone on his staff who can do a diff of a 3000 page file to find a new section?
7:04 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
The republican gold standard in electoral campaigns is that it is fair game to attack an incumbernt for anything that was in an omnibus spending bill he voted for, regardless of the fact that he was actually for or against that specific part or if the party making the attack was in favor or against.....I don't see why republicans should not be held to their own flawed standard.
Um, because two wrongs, last time I checked, didn't make a right? Regardless of which Republicans voted for the bill, all of our Ds that voted, voted for it as well. As for the tax language, somebody had to have written it and ultimately Istook will have to take the hit because it was his committee that was responsible.
I'm really irked about the anti-choice language, though. Yes, they included a provision to rewrite the language by spring, but I don't have faith that that's going to happen.
As for omnibus spending bills that are in excess of 3000 friggin' pages that include $350,000 to protect sunflowers from blackbirds in North Dakota (we got fields and fields of those things here... don't they just grow back?) that nobody bothers to read until AFTER they have voted to pass the damned thing - that's a problem. If everyone was held accountable before a vote, they could officially be held accountable after a vote. Nobody could point fingers and say they didn't know something was in there. It's like in Fahrenheit 9/11 when Moore asked Congressmen if they had read The Patriot Act. But I have no idea how to fix that problem without bogging down the system even more.
We're off track here, sorry - let's go back to pointing a finger at Greg Walden for the ethics rule. ;-)
7:07 p.m.
Nov 22, '04
I guess Barbara Boxer managed to wrangle a concession out of Frist to the effect that the Senate would hold the Omnibus until the Senate reconvened in April.
As for "doesn't anybody read these things?", it's 3000 pages - in comparison, My Life by Bill Clinton is maybe just over a third that long - and I still haven't gotten all the way through it yet. Given that Senators got -maybe- 3 hours to review it this go-round, that's a lot of people taking sections of it to read at a minimum; forget about one Senator or staffer reading it all the way through.
However, the House of Reps is not exempt from an explanation of their Yes votes. I'm going to be asking my Congressperson, Rep. Hooley, about the anti-choice provision and the tax-records provision in particular. I'll leave it to other constituents who want to have an explanation from Wu and DeFazio.
Nov 23, '04
When you reach her or when everyone here gets through to Walden, bring back what is said and pass it around. Tell them wbat you think and also what's being passed around here. Report to them and from them and be our own media.
Raise the word and pass the communication.
<h1></h1>Nov 23, '04
Before anyone gets too excited by
be aware that Brian Baird has introduced legislation to require more than a day to read major bills.There was a newspaper story about this yesterday--apparently many are angry about enough time to read before they vote (a favorite GOP trick). You only know about some of the controversial parts of the legislation because sharp members of Congress and their staffs spent the few hours reading thousands of pages (the bill split among several of them) and were able to find this stuff. Think about yourself--if you were to read even 100 pages of something technical, can you be 100% certain you would find the clinker on page 55?
The problem is not the individual members--the problem is these huge bills which no one has the time to read. And that is not the fault of the minority party members. That is the fault of the GOP congressional leadership not getting its work done--but free to vote to keep someone in leadership after indictment, or like Frist to make very nasty statements about Democrats who don't follow the orders of Republicans.
5:04 p.m.
Nov 23, '04
I completely understand that it is impossible for one person or one person's staff (or army) to read a 3000 page omnibus bill in a day or even a week. I get that. And I think it's awesome that Brian Baird is introducing that legislation - I hadn't read that (I also thought it was awesome of him to abstain from voting on the bill). But they KNEW the anti-choice language was in there. That's where my problem is with that particular vote.
It'll be interesting to see how Baird's legislation unfolds. All of the pork that gets through is disgusting. I mean, there's a provision for the President to get his yacht back (like he needs more reason to vacation) at a price of just over 1/5th it's assessed value. The current owners are irked, to say the least and why, why, WHY is that so friggin' important? Don't we have better things to be spending our tax dollars on? Like I dunno, funding education and positive, effective Medicare reform. I'm just sayin'...
There are so many problems with gigantic, last minute omnibus, bills - sounds like Baird found a good place to start.