Tom Davis screws up saying, representing district on Iraq

By: Rob
Published On: 5/11/2007 9:39:08 AM

Man, Tom Davis isn't getting anything right these days when it comes to Iraq.  To set the table: Rep. Davis joined a tiny band of so-called "moderate" (i.e., vulnerable) Republican congressmen who met with President Bush to express their displeasure with the Iraq war this week.  Scared for their jobs, clearly:
Republicans are fearful that they will lose the White House and more seats in Congress in elections next year if Mr Bush's troop surge policy continues indefinitely and his popularity ratings, slumped at around 30 per cent, do not improve. Congressman Tom Davis told Mr Bush that the approval rating for the presidency was at five per cent in parts of his northern Virginia district.

"People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble. Well, this was our chance and we took it."

Thanks, Tommy, but a bit late to the party, no?  Of course, the White House was none to pleased about the leaks over this meeting. Check out Tom Davis' reaction to the literal screaming from Karl Rove and other Bush aides:
Several lawmakers who attended one or both meetings did not fault Bush, but blamed his aides for overreacting.

"They can have such thick skin," said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who attended the meeting on Tuesday. "[President Bush] ought to embrace this and be seen as getting input from everyone."

Uh, don't you mean "thin skin"?

Given all this posturing and how depressed his district is over Iraq, you'd think Davis would turn into a champion for accountability over the war, right?  Well, guess how Tom Davis has been voting on the war funding bills that would actually creating some limitation on Bush's handling of the war.  Rep. Tom "I'm so displeased!" Davis voted against giving the President limitations (via TP) -- which flies in the face of the 5% disapproval number he was happily throwing around to the press a few days ago.  (And here he is voting the Bush way last time around as well).

After all this drama this week, this is how Davis wanted to end it?  Another rubber stamp vote for the President?  The time has long past to just gently stroke Bush's bubble with a feather in genial closed door meetings.  It's time for Davis to put action to words and actually vote against Bush's "blank check" approach to war for once -- and vote for that unrepresented 95% that Davis pretending to be so worried about.

(UPDATE: And a great comment leads me to ask -- will the Post ask him to square his concerned meeting with the President and his consistent voting to give Bush a blank check in Iraq?)

Comments



Par for the Course (Afton Dem - 5/11/2007 9:55:35 AM)
Tom tries to be on every side of every issue.  And generally succeeds.  With the Washington Post and most other media outlets in his pocket, and propaganda being pumped out with franking money and his war chest, Tom doesn't get held to account like most other politicians do.  Its amazing to watch, the man has mastered the game at the House level.  To our detriment, of course.


Ridiculous (mmc0412 - 5/11/2007 10:40:44 AM)
I understand the other "moderates" that were in that meeting voted the same way as Davis.  I find it sickening that they told the President "we'll lose our seats" rather than "soldiers are needlessly dying".  Seems like just another slap in the face to voters and the soldiers! 


Davis is a two faced coward (Rebecca - 5/11/2007 11:00:28 AM)
Like all the Republicans who have been licking Bush's boots for the last six years he just wants to do whatever seems to be popular at the time. He has no courage. He has a public face he presents to the people of the 11th district which is often at odds with his voting record. He just keeps hoping that most people don't dig deep enough to understand his game.


Battered person syndrome (Newington VA - 5/11/2007 12:23:58 PM)
Love the language in the article linked above:

"Top Bush administration officials lashed out at a pair of House Republicans at the White House yesterday."

"LaHood and Meyer got into a shouting match as emotions ran high and voices were raised yesterday morning in the White House."

"'The White House is not happy,' said a Republican lawmaker."

Republicans might want to check out this:

"In lay terms, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance."



Be Wise about Victimizers (Rebecca - 5/11/2007 1:03:43 PM)
One thing to know about people who play the victim excessively is that this is only one side of their personality. The other side is the victimizer. When you stop a victimizer they often play the victim as if holding them in check is abuse. Thus we see the phenomenon of the whining Republicans who are used to being in the role of victimizer.


Here's the list of "moderates" who voted with Bush (PM - 5/11/2007 1:09:03 PM)
http://electioncentr...

  Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
  Tom Davis, Virginia
  Ray LaHood, Illinois
  John Boehner
  Mark Kirk, Illinois
  Jim Gerlach, Pennsylvania
  James T. Walsh, New York
  Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri
  Jim Ramstad, Minnesota
  Mike Castle, Delaware
  Todd Platts, Pennsylvania

gasbags



Davis: "moderate" Republican votes with moderates 10% of the time? (Andrea Chamblee - 5/11/2007 3:25:35 PM)
I noticed that site, while excellent, has Davis as "moderate" based on the bills he has sponsored.  That covers up the fact that his votes are pure "loyal Bushie."

Just this month, during the critical Iraq votes, he voted for the Democratic Party position over the Republican party position 12 times out of 72--16% with the Democrats.  Five of those were all on one initiative involving the CIA, which of course is in his District and without those 5 votes it's 7 out of 67 or 10%.  This is consistent with his career record, although he got to under 5% when he worked with Abramoff and DeLay.  So Tom Davis is voting 10% with the Democrats this month? Does he really deserve a "moderate" label?



Interesting exercise (novamiddleman - 5/11/2007 4:03:05 PM)
Substitue Davis for Webb and see what happens

Take it seriously

Off the top of my head there are two issues

1.  How he campaigned on Iraq vs what he is actually doing and voting.  Most blatant example "we will not pull out prematurely"

2.  How often Webb votes in lockstop with the Democratic leadership.  I would say it is at least 90% if not 95%
(I don't have time to crunch the numbers myself I would be interested in the results)

Have a good weekend and make sure to go outside :-)



Hunh? (Afton Dem - 5/11/2007 5:43:38 PM)
Well, yeah, except Jim Webb says he agrees with the Democratic leadership 90% to 95% of the time.  And he votes that way.

Tom Davis, on the other hand, says he doesn't consistently vote with the Republican leadership, and defies them regularly.  And then he votes with them 90% to 95% of the time.

How are they similar? 

Also, Jim Webb has been nothing but consistent, and sensible, on Iraq.  Tom Davis?  At this point, I don't think you can even say he has a position.  He's just a pile of mush, a spineless man whose political cowardice assisted in letting an administration run Congress over, and engage our country in a bad war with no end in sight.  And I've got news for you -- Davis hasn't found a spine yet, and never will.  He's in it for one thing -- Tom Davis.  When  you view his actions in that context, they all make sense. 



Webbs words are in the comments (novamiddleman - 5/11/2007 4:05:36 PM)
http://nowatthepodiu...


Full Quotation: (JPTERP - 5/12/2007 1:40:31 AM)
"There will be very little motivation for al-Qaida to continue in Iraq once we have left," Webb said. "Not only that but the Iraqis themselves are quite capable of standing up to al-Qaida without our help. They don't want al-Qaida in Iraq." ... "The question becomes, defeat by whom? Surrender to whom?" Webb said. "We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation."


I'm sure Rove's primary concern (JPTERP - 5/12/2007 1:43:11 AM)
is that Davis's meeting won't play well with the 5% of people in parts of Davis's district who still support the President.


Tom Davis needs to hear from us (pbr - 5/12/2007 4:25:44 PM)
i talked to Tom Davis today....he alleges he's "trying" to end the war but that we can't leave until we've taken care of what "we'll leave behind."  I said it shouldn't be more of our dead or wounded soldiers. Call his office and pepper him with messages to do it now.  the time for talk is over.  we've lost over a 100 Virginians in the invasion and occupation, and over 30 of them are from Northern Virginia. As we grieve for them and their families, we must insist that there be NO MORE.

Washington Office:
2348 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4611
Phone: (202) 225-1492
Fax: (202) 225-3071

Main District Office:
4115 Annandale Rd., Ste. 103
Annandale, VA 22003
Phone: (703) 916-9610
Fax: (703) 916-9617



You should post that as a quick diary Monday so more people see it (Andrea Chamblee - 5/12/2007 5:30:42 PM)
although he already voted with the President, Dick Cheney, Inc., and his govt contractor donor$ to keep the money and blood pouring.