Mark Souder - The Congressman of NO!

Recent House Votes Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act - Vote Passed (246-178, 5 Not Voting)

The House passed this legislation to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the Build America Bonds program, and provide other infrastructure job creation tax incentives. It now goes to the Senate.

Rep. Mark Souder voted NO......

---

Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010 - Vote Passed (239-175, 1 Present, 14 Not Voting)

The House approved this measure that would provide funding for disaster relief, summer jobs and small business programs. The bill now goes to the Senate.

Rep. Mark Souder voted NO......

---

FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act - Vote Passed (276-145, 8 Not Voting)

The House passed this bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration through FY 2011 and expedite the transition to a new air traffic control system. The bill now heads to the White House for the President’s signature.

Rep. Mark Souder voted NO......

---

Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 - Vote Passed (220-207, 3 Not Voting)

On Thursday night, the House agreed to Senate amendments to this legislation that would make changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law and revise student loan procedures. It now goes to President Obama, who is expected to sign it on Tuesday.

Rep. Mark Souder voted NO......

Souder Signs Violate City Ordinance

Congressman Mark Souder is blatantly violating the city's ordinance regarding political signs. That ordinance prohibits campaign signs from being placed in the public right of way and requires that they may only be placed on private property. It further states that these signs can be no closer than 40 feet to any intersection. Souder has signs that violate these definitions in at least two areas that I observed today - The intersection of Covington and Scott Roads, in front of the city fire station

. . . and at the intersection of Covington and Dicke Roads.

Souder sides with big oil AGAIN

Rep. Souder Sides With Big Oil Against Working Families Struggling With Gas Prices

Votes Show Souder Out of Touch With Needs of Hoosiers

(Washington, DC June 27) - As gas prices soar and families struggle to make ends meet, Rep. Souder (R-IN) last night voted against legislation to lower gas prices and end profiteering by Big Oil barons and energy speculators.

“It’s almost unfathomable that at a time when his constituents are having to choose between putting gas in their cars or food on their tables that Rep. Souder would block common-sense legislation that would provide tangible relief and lead the way to a cleaner, more secure energy future,” said Caren Benjamin, deputy executive director of Americans United for Change, the progressive issue-advocacy group behind this summer’s Bush Legacy Tour www.bushlegacytour.com.

“This is just another – particularly egregious – example of how some members of Congress are putting loyalty to their corporate sponsors and to President Bush’s conservative corporate-driven agenda above the needs of the people they were elected to represent,” Benjamin added.

In lock-step with President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Rep. Souder voted against the “Use It or Lose It” bill, which would compel the oil industry to start drilling on the 68 million acres which they are currently warehousing or be barred from obtaining any more federal drilling leases until they demonstrate that they are diligently developing those lands.

Unbelievably, Rep. Souder also refused to support legislation to curb oil speculation and keep wheelers and dealers from getting rich off the backs of ordinary working people.

“Clearly, Rep. Souder is out of touch with the needs of the people of Indiana,” Benjamin said. “He must be held accountable.”

Montagano responds to Souder

Click image for a larger picture

Mike Montagano for Congress

Last Wednesday 3rd District congressional candidate Mike Montagano was the guest speaker at the Allen County Democratic Party luncheon club. I have been extremely skeptical of Montagano going into this race, but I was pleasantly surprised after meeting him and listening to what he had to say. It's obviously difficult to get the positions of a candidate after such a brief encounter but in general I liked what he had to say - especially on topics of trade and fiscal responsibility. Montagano will be announcing his candidacy tomorrow at 11am at the Embassy Theatre for those interested in hearing him for yourself.

My initial thought on Montagano was that he's just some young guy jumping into the race because he can. But I'm warming to the fact that he's a serious candidate with good ideas. I'm not sold yet but with Herb Summers backing off his plans to challenge him in a primary I suppose I don't have a choice anyway.

Mark Souder is simply not an option. I would encourage everyone, including Republicans, to take a serious look at Montagano and decide if this district needs new representation. Remember the Democrats are going to have a majority in the House regardless of this race so now might be the time for Republicans to send Souder packing and bring in some new blood for 2010.

Just a thought...

Mark Souder Loves Lobbyists

Thomas at Blue Indiana links to a story describing Congressman Mark Souder's cozy relationship with Washington DC lobbyists:

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), who's appealing for funds early after a tough reelection campaign in 2006, is hosting a series of small breakfasts and happy hours for lobbyists at Tortilla Coast and the Capitol Hill Club. Suggested contribution: $1,000per PAC, $500 per individual.

So who's interests do think he serving while in Congress? I'll give you two choices:

A) Taxpayers of the 3rd District
B) Lobbyists lining his pocket with multi-thousand dollar contributions

But don't worry, he's still going to single-handedly win the "War on Drugs"...

Souder the Hypocrite - Part 2,794 (at least)

Last week the JG ran a story about Congressman Mark Souder's desire to regulate baseball and make sure those darn professional athletes don't put anything into their own bodies that he might find objectionable.

Souder said if baseball doesn’t adopt Olympic standards about drug use, employ outside investigators, use surprise tests and do it year-round, Congress will enact legislation to require it.

I had originally planned to post about this but it eventually just slipped my mind. However, local blogger Bartleby, had an excellent post that reminded me of the situation and rekindled my anti-Souder flame so to speak (although I assure you that flame was not in jeopardy of dying out).

In my ideal world, the torturers of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and the various secret CIA shops-of-horror would be ordered to release their current victims and concentrate on waterboarding this pudgy little freak who "represents" me in the U.S. House of Representatives. The objective: make him reveal what text of the imaginary U.S. constitution empowers the FedGov to "enact legislation" -- or do any single other accursed thing -- about professional gladiators and what substances they choose to fuel themselves on. This clown obviously knows or cares nothing about the document that he has taken far too many false oaths to defend. But it might be entertaining, admittedly in a perverse way, to see what he'd shriek out in an attempt to halt his "simulated drowning."

It's not quite how I would've put it but I do enjoy his writing style. Having said that, Souder has yet another piece of drivel column in today's News Sentinel where he explains just how "conservative" he is (twice in the first 5 sentences). Furthermore, he explains that "conservatives" like him believe in personal responsibility:

The challenge of our robust republic, grounded in economic freedom, is getting some boats launched. By consensus, we have rescue operations (homeless shelters, public housing and health) that deliver minimal level services. Legislators grapple between a liberal vision that expands that security toward middle and upper classes and a conservative vision that generally supports more personal responsibility.

But wait a minute. Why doesn't that personal responsibility apply to professional athletes who are adults and under the care of a physician when they choose to use performance enhancing substances? I guess personal responsibility only applies when whatever is being done is not objectionable to Congressman Souder. Welcome to the modern Republican party - again...

Congressman Souder is an Embarrassment

There were a number of topics I wanted to post about today but I was just too busy. Souder's ignorant comments about Islam were on the top of my list, but instead of going off on my own rant I'll simply link to Blue Indiana where Thomas rightfully chastises Souder who is now borderline insane in my opinion:

If you talk to any mainstream Muslim -- and I have on quite a few occasions -- you will find nothing but anger and hatred in their heart for the things that are done in the name of their faith.

When was the last time you heard Rep. Mark Souder decry the acts done in the name of Jesus Christ? Every faith has problematic elements in their holy texts should they be taken literally. Souder is out of touch with his constituents, but he is increasingly out of touch with reality in general.

Thomas can see it; the people of Fort Wayne can see it. So to the rest of the 3rd District I can only ask

Had Enough?

And Conservatives Vote For This Clown?

The JG's Sylvia Smith has a story about the game of chicken the Republicans are playing with the Alternative Minimum Tax. I wrote about this a few days ago and let readers know that the Republicans don't want to pay for the AMT relief this year - they simply want to add it to the debt. Now I'm sure this doesn't surprise many conservatives as they've watched this group spend like drunken sailors for years. In fact I rarely find anybody that even makes the "Republicans are fiscal conservatives" argument anymore.

But for those of you that still (for whatever reason) think Congressman Mark Souder is a fiscal conservative I give you the latest example of his irresponsible behavior:

Over the years, Souder has supported legislation to increase the AMT exemptions, but he voted against the Democrats’ version this year because of the bill’s tax increases on the high-income groups. He said a better option would be to approve the one-year patch and add the cost to the deficit.

“Raising taxes is a greater threat than small extensions of raising the debt,” he said.

Did you get that? Souder would rather add more money to the deficit than pay for middle class tax cuts! And small extension? It's going to cost $50 BILLION for this year alone you jackass. But hey, what's $50 Billion among out-of-touch Beltway bureaucrats? Are there any fiscal conservatives out there willing to defend Souder's position? It's his mentality that's caused nearly all of our current financial problems.

Will the 3rd District please wake up and send this clown packing...

Congressman Souder is On the Job

The News-Sentinel is going to be publishing a series of bi-weekly columns from Congressman Mark Souder with the first installment printed today. In this one Souder describes his trip to the Washington-British Columbia border as part of his oversight responsibility on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism.

Of course for Souder everything comes back to drugs (specifically meth) and this trip was no different. First he tells of the horrors of Ecstasy trafficking along the border and then he visits a needle exchange program in Canada:

I was surprised to hear how rapidly the smuggling of the illegal drug Ecstasy has increased. Originally confined largely to “rave” parties, Ecstasy (also known as MDMA) is gaining in popularity, especially on college campuses. Often it is laced with other drugs – such as meth – to enhance its addictiveness.

While in Vancouver, B.C., I visited a needle exchange program that allows drug addicts to inject themselves with heroin in a government-run facility under the guise of “harm reduction.” This was the third time I’d seen this failing program, and I was reminded why harm reduction is a misnomer.

What do either of these two things have to do with counterterrorism? And why in the world would Souder visit a Vancouver-based needle exchange program 3 times? Is he monitoring progress to see if we can recruit these addicts into an elite anti-terrorism fighting force? Once again Souder explains by telling us how his over-the-top obsession with the "war on drugs" is really saving us money:

Oversight visits, such as this one, are among the most valuable learning tools available to a congressman who takes the time to study the issues. They help ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely as we work to strengthen our nation’s homeland security.

Ah yes, truly a wise investment of the taxpayer's money. I feel so much safer already...

Montagano Challenger

A previous post mentioned that there would likely be a challenger for Mike Montagano in the 3rd District Congressional race. However, I was contacted and asked to hold off before making the challenger's name public - which I did. But the speculation can now end as I spoke with the likely challenger today and he gave me permission to post his information. The likely challenger is:

Herb Summers

For those that might not remember, Herb Summers recently ran for Allen County Recorder in 2006 but lost to John McGauley.

First off, I want to say that Herb would only go as far as saying he is "strongly considering" running and that no official decision has been made. Now what do I think? I think this is good for the Democratic party and especially for Montagano. As most of you know I'm a firm believer in voters determining their representation and not DC elites, county chairmen or anyone else. Also, Herb will challenge Montagano and toughen him up for a potentially nasty battle with a seasoned incumbent like Mark Souder.

But I'm certainly not suggesting that a Montagano victory would somehow be inevitable. The guy has very little experience and thus will have to convince people that he's a viable candidate and alternative to Souder. Also a lot of voters in the 3rd District are located right here in Fort Wayne and Allen County where Herb is from. I wouldn't expect Herb to be able to raise the kind of money Montagano can so I don't see this primary as one that would drain the Montagano coffers if he were to win.

Considering Montagano's age, lack of experience, and residence outside the county district (until after he announced his run), it would be a shame if the Democratic Party couldn't field another candidate for a primary run against him...

Montagano Likely to Get Primary Challenger

Mike Montagano, Democratic candidate for the 3rd Congressional District, will likely have to win a primary before moving on to challenge Republican incumbent Mark Souder. While I was in the middle of writing this post to tell everybody who Montagano's challenger was going be, I received a phone call from the likely challenger asking me to withhold their name until they've had time to "tie up some loose ends".

So I will hold off until I get formal confirmation, but I thought readers of this blog would like to know that we may once again have a Democratic primary. I'll also add that the likely challenger is a Fort Wayne resident...

Is Mark Souder Blaming Dan Turkette?

Fort Wayne bloggers are having an impact on local elections. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes it's not so good. In Souder's recent press release he made the following statement:

Those active in the Kelty campaign had portrayed Cathy Hawks as a terrorist, Dr. John Crawford as a Nazi, smeared the character of Ken Neumeister, and portrayed Prosecutor Richards as a witch, just to name a few.

Here at FWL we get regular visits from somebody with a House.gov IP address and I've always assumed that it was somebody within Souder's office trying to keep up with local news and opinion. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that they also read Dan Turkette's blog Fort Wayne News. It's possible that Souder was referring to that blog in his comments above - specifically the part about Cathy Hawks and John Crawford.

Readers can visit the links and decide for themselves...

Good Night Nurse

The mailbox is blowing up this evening with comments and links to Mark Souder's press release where he officially withdraws his endorsement. Congressman Souder has gone out of his way to extend the news cycle on this. This is beyond politics - it's personal now. There's no way to spin this for the Kelty campaign, this is bad, bad news. The amateurs running the campaign are learning a valuable but old lesson - if you mess with the bull you get the horns. They can argue with Souder on policy positions but at the end of the day if he wants to bury you as a Republican candidate then you might as well start digging your grave. Looks like the dead body found under the GOP outhouse on the infamous Kelty cake was simply a metaphor for Kelty's candidacy...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
OCTOBER 16, 2007
CONTACT: MARTIN GREEN
(260) 579-7279

MARK SOUDER STATEMENT

U.S. Rep. Mark Souder released the following statement this evening:

Because of a number of calls from Matt Kelty supporters asking for a clarification of my position, as well as repeated media requests, I offer the following detailed explanation. Other than the original endorsement of Nelson Peters, and the post-primary endorsement of Matt Kelty, I have initiated no other comments.

I endorsed Nelson Peters for mayor because I felt he would be a conservative mayor and he could unite the city. Nelson lost.

Because I was the senior elected Republican in the city, because I was a long-time friend of Matt Kelty, and because I shared his conservative views—after he was cleared by the election board and before he was indicted—I felt it was important to endorse him, even though few other elected Republicans have done so.

The only "pressure" I have received because of any of my comments has been from Kelty supporters. These comments have generally been accompanied by non-subtle threats to wreck my political career. No other Republican Party official or anyone opposed to Kelty has pushed me to act.

In Washington, the filing of campaign charges has been used as a political weapon to discredit opponents. Unfortunately, more often than not the charges have proven to be true. But that's not the case for them all—some have been unjustly smeared.

In my opinion, prosecutor Karen Richards had no choice but to make a referral to a special prosecutor when the case came before her. Since she had endorsed Peters, no one would have seen any decision she made as fair.

Dan Sigler, though a former Democrat prosecutor, was elected in a very conservative county (Adams) with widespread Republican support. He had long had a reputation for fairness. It would have been hard to find any current or past prosecutor who would not have been criticized by someone. Dan Sigler is about as close to non-partisan as exists in our region.

When I endorsed Kelty, I was upset that what had appeared to be a fairly cut-and-dried case was dragging on. The election board heard the basic facts. It seemed to me that the case should have been decided prior to Labor Day. I suggested that a drawn-out case, constantly trumpeted by the media, was potentially political harassment. It was suggested, and I agreed, that a good prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict in most cases where a legitimate debate exists. Indictment is not guilt.

Before endorsing Matt, I made it clear to him that I questioned both the cost of the Zogby poll and whether he tried to get around campaign laws. But, based on his word, I did believe that, whatever his motives were, he had followed the law. The opinion of my longtime friend Jim Bopp also helped persuade me.

When I learned the specifics of the seven felony counts and two misdemeanors, it became clear that the case was a lot more complicated than it had at first appeared. The indictments were substantial, not superficial. Two were for felony perjury. They involved two individuals associated with prominent security firms, Don Willis and Fred Rost, whose testimony convinced the grand jury that Matt Kelty had perjured himself.

Shortly after the indictments were released, Jeff Neumeyer of Indiana's News Center asked me if I regretted my endorsement. Not all of my comment was aired. I said that I gave the endorsement prior to the indictments (which was not aired), and that I didn't regret it (which was aired). In other words, I did what I felt was best at the time.

Again in September, Indiana's News Center asked me how I felt about the Republicans for Henry group since I had endorsed Matt Kelty. Once again I pointed out that I had endorsed Matt before he had been indicted (not aired), and that each Republican had to make up his or her own mind (which was aired).

Then, a week ago, Sylvia Smith of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, followed by Indiana's News Center and WANE-TV, asked me more directly about my endorsement and whether it remained in effect.

In addition to the above, I explained that an increasing number of defectors from the Kelty campaign claimed that people within the campaign, and the candidate himself, continued to make disparaging remarks about me and attacked my friends.

Those active in the Kelty campaign had portrayed Cathy Hawks as a terrorist, Dr. John Crawford as a Nazi, smeared the character of Ken Neumeister, and portrayed Prosecutor Richards as a witch, just to name a few.

After declining to tape a radio commercial, and after refusing all requests to support the Kelty campaign since the indictments, the Kelty campaign nevertheless mailed out my earlier endorsement without even the courtesy of asking me or the common decency even to inform me.

Each Fort Wayne voter, including myself, has to make up his or her mind about the substance of the indictments, the character of the candidates, and the importance of the issue differences.

My vote will be private. But because I had previously been one of the only elected Republican officials to endorse Matt Kelty publicly, the questions kept coming about whether that endorsement still stood. For the stated reasons, my endorsement of Matt Kelty does not stand.

Souder Said Knock You Out

It is unbelievable to just sit back and watch the Kelty-Souder train wreck. Mark Souder went out of his way to publicly endorse Matt Kelty and now he's going a step further in lambasting Kelty in the media. I mean this isn't Kevin Knuth or some Democratic politician saying these things - this is Mark Souder, a long time Kelty friend and ultra-partisan Republican Congressman.

Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, refused to participate in a radio commercial for Republican mayoral candidate Matt Kelty and now is “extremely upset” that Kelty recently used Souder’s past endorsement in a mailing to supporters.

“I would have said no” if Kelty had asked permission to include Souder in the mailing, he said Monday.

Souder also said he hasn’t made up his mind whether he’ll vote for Kelty next month.

Are you kidding me? If Mark frickin' Souder won't vote for you as a Republican nominee then you are in serious trouble. I mean let's just step back and analyze this for a second. Souder doesn't have to say anything about Kelty at this point. When asked he could've simply stated "I'm already on the record about Matt Kelty and I'm not going to discuss it further". But what does he do instead? He leads the charge against Kelty by publicly dishing out more anti-Kelty soundbites. It's not that he doesn't want to support Kelty, it's that he wants to publicly embarrass him. What does he do to top this - make his absentee ballot public?

There are possibly two different sides to Mark Souder's actions. One, he is backtracking for political reasons and doesn't want to be anywhere near a radioactive Kelty. Or two, he genuinely believes that Kelty is a troubled individual that has no business being mayor. Normally I would say #1 is the most likely choice but we can't forget that several prominent Republicans have broken away from Kelty. Who at this point will stand up and support him publicly? Anyone? Anyone?

I don't say this often but - Thank You Congressman Souder...

A Trip Down Blogger Memory Lane For Mark Souder Supporters

Dan Turkette has an excellent post up about Mark Souder's abandonment of Matt Kelty over the cake fiasco. There's one specific part I wanted to highlight because it relates to something I wrote prior to the 2006 election but the whole thing is definitely worth reading:

Souder surely is only “disturbed” by the Allen County GOP regulars’ threat to abandon him in the next election if he continued to support Kelty for mayor. The cake was the break he needed to part, and judgment is always just a subjective enough reason to appear plausible. Souder is going to need their money to get elected next year, so why risk that for a guy you didn’t support to begin with. Easy call. If Mark Souder is willing to trade principles (like innocent until proven guilty), loyalty (his lengthy collegial and personal relationship with Kelty), and unity (Party unity) for campaign cash and power, what else is he willing trade?

I supported Souder in his run against Hayhurst last year. That won’t be happening again in 2008.

After reading this I couldn't help but remember my plea to conservatives to abandon Souder in favor of Tom Hayhurst. The premise of my argument was that Souder is a poor representative for this district but the structure of party politics don't allow for significant primary challengers. Since the Democrats were clearly going to take over the House anyway, voters could've elected Hayhurst - if only for two years - and gotten new Republican representation. I stand by this argument and think it's even more valid today than ever before. I've copied the original post below for those that are new to the blogosphere or might've missed it the first time around:

First off, let me start by saying Mark Souder is no conservative. In fact the case against Souder has been made so many times and is so obvious I won't even bother repeating it - instead, I will simply stipulate it.

However, I understand that a broader picture must be taken into account when choosing between two candidates. I'm sure it's extremely difficult for many conservatives to vote for Souder but the alternative is to support the Democratic party and that has just been out of the question. In a sense, Mark Souder is right when he says "a vote for Tom Hayhurst is a vote for Nancy Pelosi". Sometimes you HAVE to vote for a candidate because you believe in the party and its platform - even if you don't agree with the local candidate.

However, this logic breaks down when the national race isn't in doubt. If casting out a bad seed won't affect the party's position, then an argument can be made that you should send a message to your local and national party. NOW is the time for this district to send that message and purge Souder from the party. There is no doubt in my mind that superior Republican candidates would come forward if Souder was out of the picture. Waiting for primary elections isn't the best strategy because up-and-comers don't want to cross the party establishment by challenging an incumbent with over a decade of seniority.

The Congressional race isn't in doubt - the Democrats are most likely going to win the House regardless of what happens in this district. This presents a genuine opportunity for Republicans that are sick and tired of Mark Souder to turn this district upside down - for the better. The public discourse would be elevated tremendously with Souder out of the picture. Mark Souder and the Republican party have not lived up to their Contract with America - remember they ALL said:"If we break this Contract, throw us out"It's time to hold Mark Souder accountable to this district, the Republican party and the pledge he made to America - VOTE TOM HAYHURST ON TUESDAY...

Why Elections Matter

Friday gave us yet another example of how elections have consequences. After years of subsidies to private lenders at the expense of students, the Democratic Congress passed legislation that will help make a college education more affordable. Of course Indiana's three worst congressmen (Dan Burton, Mike Pence, Mark Souder) voted against the legislation which passed by overwhelming numbers. So let's take a look at what these three voted against.

1. Increase in Pell Grants from $4310 to $5400 per year
2. Cut interest rates from in half on Stafford Loans from 6.8% to 3.4%
3. Loan forgiveness for those who work 10 years in a public service job
4. Provides scholarships for students that commit to teaching science and math in the schools that need the most help

I could go on and on. And let us not forget that this legislation will be payed for not by an increase in taxes but by removing $20 Billion in subsidies going to private lenders. Money these lenders have used to bribe university officials to help their bottom line while simultaneously eroding middle class income.

It is absolutely shameful that congressmen from Indiana of all places would vote against legislation that will send more people to college. A state where median income and job growth has become some of the worst in the country. Our government has systematically dismantled the economy of this state by promoting trade policies that have undermined the American worker time and again. The "free trade" talking point has always been that we need to embrace the new economy and that workers need to become more educated.

Yet when presented a bill that would do exactly that - help more Hoosiers afford college - these three once again show that they would rather protect their business buddies than help the citizens of this state. Shameful...

Mark Souder is Completely Transparent

So Congressman Mark Souder is calling for Idaho Senator Larry Craig to resign after his run-in with police in an airport restroom sex sting operation. Of course I didn't hear Souder calling for Senator Vitter's ouster after he recently admitted to soliciting prostitutes.

So what's the biggest difference? Craig's arrest was for a homosexual encounter and Vitter's wasn't. Normally I'd say that was the deciding factor for a guy like Souder and I certainly wouldn't be sad to see a hypocrite like Craig resign. However, we have to remember that everything is uber-partisan with Souder and this is no exception. In Senator Craig's case his replacement would be appointed by a Republican governor while Vitter's would be appointed by a Democratic governor.

Someone might want to ask Souder about this double standard...

My Encounter with Mark Souder at the Kelty Press Conference

I went to the Matt Kelty press conference today where Mark Souder publicly offered his endorsement of Matt Kelty. Of course readers might remember that Souder endorsed Nelson Peters in the primary, but I don't think it's a surprise that Souder would coalesce behind the Republican nominee. However, there were several prominent members of the Republican Party still noticeably absent. Those present were Liz Brown, Mitch Harper, Paul Moss and Steve Shine.

Matt's speech was about property taxes and his "Cut it, Cap it, Make it Permanent" platform. There are parts of this idea that I really like and parts that I think are unrealistic but I'll save that argument for another day. I wanted to point out that while I was the only Democrat present I was treated very well by several local Republicans including Dan Turkette, Steve Shine, Mitch Harper, Mark Garvin and even Matt Kelty.

After the press conference was over I was able to ask Congressman Souder a couple of questions about his fence-sitting position on Iraq and I thought I'd share his answers with everyone:

Pruitt: Congressman, our troops were sent to Iraq for this surge under the explanation that they were going to provide security for a political reconciliation, and I know you’ve come out recently and said that you’ve been on the fence about a lot of these recent resolutions. But I guess I’m wondering now that it’s almost certain that the Iraqi Parliament is going to take the month of August off, how can anyone support this strategy anymore and has that caused you to waver at all knowing that the political reconciliation just simply cannot take place?

Souder: My position in voting to go to war, my position in staying there, and my position in a drawdown – not an abandonment – there’s a mis-statement that my concern was over the date of withdrawal. My debate has been over the size of troops that would remain – I don’t believe we should be the occupying power. I had given up on the Iraqi Parliament a long time ago; I would like them to work together, it would be nice , it would be wonderful for democracy. We have to look out for our long term interests in the Middle East. That includes Iran, that includes Israel, that includes not having radical Islamic groups take over Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Yemen – if the radical groups take over there we’re going to have to put five or six hundred thousand troops in the region. So what’s going on in the Iraqi Parliament, I’d given up on them some time ago.

Pruitt: It seems like the differences between your position and the Democratic Party’s position on strategic redeployment or withdrawal or whatever you want to call it are not that far apart. So since you’re on the fence do have any plans to put forth your own bipartisan legislation to try and wrap this up?

Souder: I’ve stated my, because people have asked me “well what are your views”, and I’ve said them over and over, I don’t know whether it’d be thirty or forty thousand troops – that would be really up to the generals. I just believe more bases out in the open spaces where you can see who’s coming at you and then you take the battle to the enemy. I’ve talked to numerous members about offering something like that but have not done so for the following reasons. The moderate Democrats who I’ve talked to including their leadership would support that position and probably as much as half to two-thirds of the Republicans would. The problem is that as long as the President takes one position and the Democrat leadership takes another there’s no room for anybody to break nor is it clear they would even allow that to be offered.

So I’ve stated my position but there’s no real point in putting forth legislation. I believe after the September report, which now looks like Patreus may ask for November, that that position in fact will be the Republican position. My criticism of President Bush has been, if you would’ve taken this position nine to twelve months ago I believe we might’ve been able to get a compromise. Now both sides are so dug in that I don’t know that a compromise is possible. I’ll look at Lugar’s compromise, my guess is that he has a little more faith in the Iraq study group than I do, but I’ve articulated what that is but there isn’t really any point to legislation that five or ten people might sign on but the leadership in either party won’t allow to be offered.

Draw your own conclusion...