Or whoever your rep is in the House and in the Senate.

To check on Davis, you can go here at WaPo projects:
http://projects.wash...

or have the votes delivered to you weekly from Congress.org.
http://www.congress....

Congress.org gives an email with links to send a quickie note to you Representative that you support or don't support upcoming bills and their votes on past bills.

Thanks for the promo!

You are right. Davis said he supports DC voting. Then he voted against it. He seemed to be okay with letting DC vote as long as the vote was canceled out by Utah.  (DC:Thanks for nothing).  So, do you know what was his problem with this version, or are you just full of hot gas? I'd love to hear it (not the hot gas, I mean).

then he really doesn't give a crap. It's a wash. He's doing it strickly for PR. He doesn't really give a shit about DC's right to vote, only to have the perception that he cares--Any one with any common sense knows that.Tell it like it is Andrea!!!!

the only reason utah was added was because a) they deserved another vote after the last census, but more importantly b) it wouldn't pass the House without it.  that's why.  davis has been working on this for four years.  four years!  he appeased everybody he had to by making concessions - and the bottom line is without utah, this doesn't pass.  period.

also, this particular vote chamblee alludes to doesn't even give DC a vote.  think what you want - davis is on the right side on the dc vote issue and deserves all the credit in the world.  anybody thinking otherwise is way off the reservation.

They didn't have enough population in the census to have another vote. They were the closest state to be next, but they didn't meet the threshold.  Certainly DC "deserves" a vote since right now it had NONE. Utah has the reps it is entitled to.

If Davis objected to this admittedly weak provision that lets representatives of non-voting district vote when it doesn't effect the outcome, so be it. He should say he wanted something stronger. That's why I asked if any knew why he voted against it.  Since all you can come up with is irrelevant defensive weak-ass crap in response, that tells us that's not why he voted against it. He stood with the Repugs, like he always does.

He's about as honest about where he stands as Michael Steele was. I guess it's hard out there for a pimp when he no longer has anything to sell.

Here's what he said about his vote. That Committee of the Whole vote is purely symbolic.

And yes, it's ridiculous to say Utah "deserved" another seat. It would have gotten another seat if the House were one seat larger, but it wasn't, and Utah's situation isn't any different from that of every other state that's been 436th on the apportionment list in previous decades.

That said, I'm willing to accept the expansion of the House, which gives the seat for now to Utah, if it means that I'll actually have a voice in Congress. After the 2010 census, that new seat won't be Utah's anymore (it's hard to predict at this stage which state will get it), but DC's seat will remain.

I agree that the provision is weak. But I am not convinced that's why Davis didn't support it. Davis also said: "What is proposed today in H. Res. 78 is not a politically neutral solution. It adds four Democrat votes and one Republican."

Do you wonder the people of Guam and the islands are Democrats? Perhaps Davis made them that way. When Davis was NRCC Chair, he wrote a check without Board approval for $500,000 in soft money to the U.S. Family Network (USFN) and Northern Marianas sweatshop millionaire/Jack Abramoff crony Willie Tan.  FEC fined the NRCC $280,000 for the illegal transfer.

since you have such an incredible bias against davis.  why?  i have no idea - but you do, so that's all that matters.

regardless, maybe my language for saying utah "deserves" a vote was the wrong word to use.  it "deserves" a vote only because it was what, literally 800 people short in the last census?  and the census failed to take into account any of the thousands of mormon missionaries who reside in utah but are currently overseas?  that's as close to "deserving" a vote as you can get.

obviously, dc is a different story, and the two shouldn't be compared.  that wasn't my intention.

Yes, I am biased against Davis. Just like when the President said there were WMDs in Iraq, I  said, this compulsive liar doesn't deserve our trust.  Show the evidence.

Davis votes 95% with Bush and then loses the character and conviction of his principles to admit it.

I respect John Warner, even though I disagree with a lot of what he says. I believe he arrived at his beliefs being honest and he tells voters what they'll get. I respected the old Senator McCain. I maintain my utmost respect for Repubs Charles Mathias and somewhat for Connie Morella. I don't respect someone like Tom Davis who is so ashamed of his own beliefs and the truth that he has to lie about what they are. He may not lie every time his speaks; even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I'm not gullible enough to take what he says at face value. That's why I said this bill IS a weak bill. Now, prove to me that's why he voted against it and not because he is in Bush's jacket pocket. Bush's alcohol- and cocaine-soaked, dirty-money-lined, lumpy from the wire from Karl Rove jacket pocket.

The more I learn about Davis the more I realize that he is a major scum bag. Pardon my French (Spanish,Farsi, whatever).

I can understand why some people vote for Davis cause he's a good bullshiter, but for people that are following house bills, votes and general political events, it's a no brainer--Davis speaks out two sides of his mouth. I am not gullible enough to believe that he has his districts best interest. And he pushes the DC vote, cause he loves getting favorable press from the Washington Post. Which he gets. The Post and Davis are unquestionably in bed together scratching each others backs.

Andrea Chamblee is 100% right about Tom Davis--she doesn't have an axe to grind with him--she's telling the truth--she does her homework. And the Washington Post should be ashamed of themselves for prostituting themselves for personal company gains.

First off, Andrea obviously does have an axe to grind - for whatever reason, but it's there.

Secondly, here Andrea, maybe this will satisfy you for the time being.  It looks like she's already written the second comment on the blog portion!  :)

http://blog.washingt...

The second comment not mine. My account is achamblee (surprise) not "Not Tom Davis."

My axe grinds by his lying. If he would start telling the truth, I would have less to complain about.  Discrimination based on bad behavior is the good kind of discrimination. At least that's what my mother told me about accepting dates!

Speaking of which, where is Ed Schrock now that the Democrats have taken over?