If Mike Simpson’s a Conservative, I’m a Cleanshaven Jockey

The Idaho Conservative Blogger got an audience or at least an e-mail audience with my Congressman Mike Simpson and they asked about a somewhat caustic remark I wrote last month:

Well, Simpson is so confident, he’s done the political equivalent of walking out on the battlefield in t-shirt and gym shorts. When he’s back in his district, he doesn’t hold town hall meetings where his constituents can ask him questions. He doesn’t have representatives show up at Central Committee meetings, which is a good thing as his staff makes the downtown DMV look like the Missionaries of Charity. I’ve gotten more polite service at a Subway near BSU. That says something.”

“Simpson has taken his position for granted. Even Simpson’s fundraising numbers are weak. They’re the numbers of a man whose political career has become a never-ending victory lap. Now, he faces a challenge. Not two unknown challengers throwing in their hats at the last minute before the filing deadline, but one challenger who is raising money and building an organization in a year when incumbency will offer less advantage than any year since 1994.”

Simpson answered my charges, sorta:

Simpson: Adam is entitled to his own opinion. I have never taken any race in my life for granted and will not take this one for granted either. I believe competition is a good thing and that voters deserve choices in elections, which they will certainly have in the primary next year. I am proud of my record of service to my constituents and of my voting record in Congress, which is one of a pragmatic conservative who has opposed over $4.5 TRILLION in spending this year alone as well as efforts to expand the definition of hate crimes, the Democrats’ Health Care Entitlement Plan, the Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade proposal, and myriad other cornerstones of the liberal agenda. In addition, I am strongly supporting a number of other fiscally-conservative bills this Congress including the Balanced Budget Amendment, legislation to sunset all federal agencies and require their reauthorization, and legislation to repeal the Obama-Pelosi stimulus bill. I am proudly pro-life, and I strongly oppose illegal immigration, gun control and the efforts of Democrats to institute a secret ballot in union elections. As I said, I am proud of my conservative record and confident that I have voted in the best interests of Idaho throughout my nearly 11 years in Congress.

Other than claiming to be conservative, by opposing bills that nearly every other Republican in Congress opposes, Simpson does little to answer the charges that he’s complacent other than insisting that he’s not. He doesn’t hold townhall meetings and he doesn’t challenge the assertion that his staff is surly and unresponsive to the public. Nor other than stating he wasn’t taking the election granted did he actually refute my evidence that suggested he was.

In addition, does Simpson really deserve plaudits for opposing legislation that most Republicans opposed. Simpson voted against Health Care, the Stimulus, and Cap and Trade.  That means that Simpson voted with 99.43%, 100%, and 95.48% of the Republican Caucus. When does Mr. Simpson want us to schedule the ticker tape parade?

As for the Balanced Budget Amendment, given Mr. Simpson’s deplorable record of supporting government waste, this paints the picture of an alcoholic supporting prohibition. It’s as if Simpson is saying, “Stop me before I spend again!” Never mind that in this congress, the Balanced Budget Amendment has as much chance of being approved as a Constitutional Amendment banning music videos praising politicians.

Simpson does deliver a reasonable answer to why he supported an expansion of Cash for Clunkers:

Simpson: I did NOT support the Cash for Clunkers program. I voted against the creation of the program and would do so again today if another vote occurred. I will be the first to acknowledge that I did vote for the release of an additional $2 billion for the program, but it was not a vote in support of the program. Please let me explain. The release of the additional $2 billion for the program was offset by a reduction of $2 billion from the Obama Stimulus Bill. If that $2 billion would have remained in the stimulus bill, it would have been spent, like most of the other $785 billion in the stimulus bill, to grow government agencies and government programs that will live on for decades into the future. By voting to move that $2 billion out of stimulus and into Cash for Clunkers, I felt the money at least would be sent back to the American people where they would spend it far more wisely than the government would. As I said, I did NOT support the Cash for Clunkers program and do NOT support it now. In fact, I oppose it. My vote on the additional $2 billion was not a choice of supporting or not supporting the program. It was a choice between $2 billion for Clunkers or $2 billion for stimulus and I made the decision that $2 billion for clunkers was the lesser of two evils.

Fair enough, I thing Congressman Simpson gave a reasonable explanation. In fact, I think he gave one twice.  However, Simpson’s response to his opponent Chick  Heileson’s more mild criticism was worthy of consideration:

“”I want to see the Constitution followed, I think Mike Simpson believes he is a Constitutionalist, but if you look at the document and compare it with his voting record, he’s not following it the way he should.”

Simpson responds:

Like Adam Graham, Mr. Heileson is entitled to his own opinion. However, I am a strong supporter of the Constitution and look to its guidance often in the efforts I undertake as a Congressman.

Really?  Perhaps this calls for a letter:

Dear Congressman Simpson,

I was overjoyed and surprised to hear that you look to the Constitution for guidance on your votes.

I did have a couple question, though. What specific clause in the Constitution led you to vote to send $700 billion in tax dollars to private corporations with your vote for the TARP bill? Secondly, what section did you find that led you to vote for the expansion of SCHIP while our country faces a deficit more than a trillion? Please send the appropriate section of the Constitution where Congress’ action was justified.

Also, if you just couldn’t find your copy of the Constitution on the day the vote occurred and just winged it, please let me know as well.

Your Constituent,
Adam Graham

I’ll let you know when I get a response.

*For those who don’t know me, I have a beard, and I couldn’t be a jockey because I’m too-uh-tall.