Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

On this matter of

On this matter of Rep. Charles Taylor's (R) disputed vote on CAFTA last night, it's important to make the following point. The bill passed 217-215. Taylor was first counted as not voting. His no vote would make it 217-216, which of course still means it passes.

But that doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

These sorts of high-stakes votes are highly fluid and dynamic. Either side might have a handful of members on the sidelines who won't budge if it's a two or three vote margin but will make the hard vote if the margin is down to just one.

Normally this sort of monday morning quarterbacking is just woulda, coulda, shoulda. But if Taylor's vote was really misrecorded, it's worth considering.

Rep. Charles Taylor R

Rep. Charles Taylor (R) of North Carolina has just put out a statement about his claim that his "NO" vote last night on CAFTA was not recorded by the House clerk.

We've posted the statement here.

As noted below CAFTA

As noted below, CAFTA won in the House last night by a mere two votes -- 217-215 -- in what has been described as unprecedented arm-twisting. Already, one Republican representative, Charles Taylor (R-NC) has claimed that, contrary to press accounts, he voted "No", only to have the House clerk "botch" his vote and record him as not voting.

If that's true, the bill passed by a single vote.

How often to votes get 'botched' by the House electronic voting system? And what more stories are yet to bubble out?

Representative Charles Taylor R-NC

Representative Charles Taylor (R-NC), a longtime opponent of CAFTA, is down in press reports out this morning as not casting a vote on the bill last night.

But we hear that his office is telling constituents that the House clerk "botched the vote", that he actually voted "no", and that his office is now trying to resolve the issue.

Taylor's Ashville office tells me they're about to release a statement.

(ed.note: We're discussing this over in this discussion thread at TPMCafe.)

CAFTA because ya HAFTAWho

CAFTA because ya HAFTA?

Who will be the first to talk?

We all know what happened the last time the White House told the House GOP leadership that it had to pass a certain bill, despite significant resistance from GOP backbenchers. Lots of offers were made that couldn't be refused. And that was when out-going Rep. Nick Smith got hit with a mix of bribes and threats on the floor of the House itself.

I've been hearing from various sources that what the GOP leadership did in the House last night on CAFTA put that earlier episode to shame. Rep. Early Pomeroy (D) of North Dakota told the local paper: "I've seen the Republican leadership break arms on close votes before, but nothing quite this ugly."

I've been getting lots of stories in. But a lot of the details may well show up in local papers rather than the big national dailies. So collaborative research, as we did with Social Security and the DeLay Rule, is really the only way to get a handle on the story.

One interesting story is that of Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC): to paraphrase that lame jibe from last year, Hayes voted 'No' before he voted 'Yes'. Only literally. Says Bloomberg: "In the end a 40-minute delay in the vote was broken after the Republican leadership convinced Representative Robin Hayes of North Carolina to switch his vote to yes."

If you see articles in local media that seem to give some part of the story, let us know in this discussion thread we've just we've just set up over at TPMCafe. If you were there or have other details to share, let us know that too. And if you need to remain anonymous, you can always send a note directly to TPM at the comments email at the top of the sidebar.

Out of the corner

Out of the corner of my eye I've been watching this growing dispute over whether and which 'documents' about Judge Roberts the White House will turn over to the senate as part of his confirmation hearings. And quite apart from the particular documents in question, I'm wondering what the argument is, precisely, for the White House having access to any more information in the process of nominating Roberts than the Senate should have in confirming him.

It seems like a basic point of logic. Why should the senate's call be, by definition, less well-informed than the president's?

In national security appointments, there may be some genuine separation of powers issues at stake. For instance, when Condi Rice was promoted from National Security Advisor to Secretary of State. But as long as the information relates to Roberts personal finances, work history and so on, clearly none of those issues are involved.

I know it may seem like I'm being willfully dense or naive. But what's wrong with the standard of: If the White House got to see it, why not the senate?

A very important article

A very important article in tomorrow's Times. The lede: "Senior military lawyers lodged vigorous and detailed dissents in early 2003 as an administration legal task force concluded that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, newly disclosed documents show."

I really doubt theyd

I really doubt they'd have the nerve to try. But I just posted a story over at TPMCafe about how pressure may be building to can Patrick Fitzgerald as US Attorney in Chicago, with the thumb down possibly coming from Denny Hastert. It's a complicated story, with various levels of possible political maneuvering in play.

Ive mentioned a few

I've mentioned a few times here that I'm not sure that Judy Miller is really in jail for things she did in her role as a journalist, at least not in the sense most of us would understand the term. Over at her blog, Arianna Huffington just posted a scenario along these lines about Miller -- one Arianna says is making rounds at the Times itself.

Not all the details are the same. But I've heard similar stuff.

Stop by and see what she says.

LiveWire