If you watched President Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress last night or have seen the news since, you no doubt heard or heard about Representative Joe Wilson’s inappropriate outburst during the speech. Wilson screamed out “You lie!” when the President stated unequivocally that his proposed health care reform plan would not provide coverage to illegal aliens:

On insistence of the Republican leadership, Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, today apologized for his outburst and his apology was graciously accepted by President Obama.

I was intrigued to see at the New York Times and at TPM this morning , that our own Peter Roskam was seated directly to Wilson’s left during the speech.

It does not appear that they are seated alphabetically, or by state delegation, because  they would not fall together. They aren’t seated by Committee because Wilson is not on Ways and Means. They aren’t particularly close in seniority – Wilson was seated in 2001, Roskam in 2007.  So either they were seated that way by accident, or they chose to sit together.

I don’t know whether Wilson and Roskam are close. If they were, I would not be surprised. The two have very similar voting records – 93% out of 2318 roll call votes since 2007 were identical according to Open Congress’ nifty new comparison tool as of this writing. Both Roskam and Wilson have been working to defeat President Obama’s efforts to provide healthcare coverage to all Americans. And Roskam has not been afraid to play the illegal alien card himself when he thought it could work to his political advantage.

It would be interesting to hear Peter Roskam’s thoughts on Wilson’s outburst, the nature of his relationship with Joe Wilson, and whether he admonished Wilson himself on his behavior, having been seated right next to him.

And what’s that angry scowl about on Roskam’s face?

Addendum: I just heard Peter Roskam quoted on WBEZ a saying he “cringed” at Wilson’s remarks. But the photo’s don’t seem to show Roskam reacting negatively to Wilson. Rather his attention and his scowl seem to be focused elsewhere. Notably, WBEZ did not quote Roskam as saying he chastised his colleague. Presumably, he did not.

2nd Addendum: The Daily Herald now reports that Roskam was “surprised” and “disappointed” by Wilson’s outburst. The camera does not show that. If Roskam had been surprised we would see him reacting to Wilson at this moment. Instead his expression, IMHO, seems to be a reaction to the President on the podium. Birds of a feather, I believe.

3rd Addendum:  TPM has further background on Joe Wilson including his attacks on Sen. Strom Thurmond’s illegitimate daughter (Wilson is a former Thurmond page) and on Rep. Bob Filner who had the temerity to state that the U.S. had armed Saddam Hussein. Its a little frightening, though not particularly surprising, that Peter Roskam would hang out with this guy. Perhaps Peter would feel more at home if he joined the the South Carolina delegation. The climate is nicer (at least for the moment) and South Carolina is a better fit for a 19th century kind of guy like Roskam.

Last Addendum: It looks like, as of this writing, Miller has raised over $750,000 in campaign contributions since Wilson’s outburst on Wednesday night.

If I don’t have much good to say about Peter Roskam these days, I can at least credit him for being consistent. Roskam is quite consistently opposed to anything that might possibly benefit an ordinary working man or woman at the expense of the giant corporations and wealthy individuals whose interests he uses his seat in Congress to represent.

It was no surprise when Peter Roskam voted against the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 on June 4, 2009. Congressman Roskam has been a fierce advocate of unlimited pay for corporate executives, but God forbid any working mother or father should be given the time and the financial wherewithal to care for a new child. Why that would make us no different than those Commie countries like… like Canada!

H.R. 626 provides for 4 weeks of paid parental leave to federal employees surrounding the birth or adoption of a child. Federal employees currently receive 12 weeks of unpaid leave (as do all employees subject to the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993). The bill further provides that the employees can use accumulated sick time and vacation time to convert some or all of the balance of that 12 weeks into paid time. Finally, the Office of Personnel Management would be enabled to extend the paid period to 8 weeks. The measure applies only to federal employees and would be at best a weak immitation of pro-family policies in place in many Western countries. Hell, even Zimbabwe gives mothers 90 days at 100%.

Roskam, of course, in addition to not wanting to spend a dime of our federal tax dollars on a working family, fears that the bill will be a foot in the door for future further enhancements to FMLA, something that Roskam’s corporate overlords at the U.S. Chamber and at the National Association of Manufacturers virulently oppose.

Despite Roskam’s vote, along with those of most of his Republican colleagues, H.R. 626 passed by a vote of  258-154. It will now have to be taken up by the Senate.

Peter Roskam deserves to be shamed for his anti-family vote. Please contact him today.  You can reach him at (202) 225-4561 in Washington or at (630) 893-9670 in Bloomingdale.

The United States Chamber of Commerce recently honored Peter Roskam for proving in his first term to be “an effective ally to the business community”.

Sounds great until you realize what exactly “being an effective ally to the business community” means.

Put simply, it means consistently voting against the interests of the majority of citizens in your district and giving big business exactly what it demands.

It means means Roskam voting against reducing the dependence on fossil fuels that is threatening our national security and destroying our environment by requiring minimum standards for the percentage of electricity generated using renewable sources of energy.

It means Roskam voting against tax incentives for energy conservation and development of clean, renewable energy sources because they are funded by the repeal of tax breaks to big oil companies now enjoying huge profits at our expense every time we fill up our tanks.

It means Roskam voting against the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 which would have insured that Illinois’ uninsured children receive the kind of health care that Roskam’s own kids get at taxpayer expense.

It means Roskam standing up for the interests of big drug companies rather than allowing the Medicare program to negotiate for better prices on prescription drugs.

It means Roskam voting against protection of his constituents right to equal pay for equal work. And their right to organize.

And it means Roskam voting against protecting middle class taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

So congratulations on your big award, Peter, and thanks for nothing. Its time we had a new Representative in Congress who works for us and not for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Peter Roskam loves to harrangue Democrats about earmarks.

Last year Peter Roskam joined Reagan 21 , a caucus of extreme conservative Republican Senators and Representatives of the likes of Tom Coburn and Jim Demint. Among its other objectives Reagan 21 committed itself to ending all earmarks.

Needless to say, I was surprised when Citizens Against Government Waste released its 2008 Pig Book, a compendium of earmarks, and it revealed 10 earmarks attributed to Roskam at a cost of $12 million. Not a huge number but quite a bit for someone committed to ending all earmarks. I wonder if he’ll have to turn in his Reagan 21 membership card.

The projects involved seem pretty laudable, a big chunk of the $12 million going to PACE and METRA which I support. It just makes Roskam seem a bit silly.

Coburn and Demint honored their no earmarks pledges. I didn’t check on all the other Reagan 21 members.

The Reagan 21 web site looks a bit forlorn as of this writing. I signed up for their mailing list but haven’t heard from them. The site does present an interesting statistic:

“In 1996, there was 3,023 earmarks at a cost of $19.5 billion. The number of earmarks skyrocketed to 15,877 in 2005 at a cost of $47.4 billion.”

But wait a minute. Which party controlled Congress during those years? Kind of makes Reagan 21 look a little silly too.

I first ran this back in November. I have not received any responses. Could my theory be correct? I’m giving you another chance to prove me wrong. There are fabulous prizes at stake.

Peter Roskam is George Bush. At least that’s my working theory.

Have you ever seen a picture of George Bush and Peter Roskam together? I haven’t and I’ve really hunted for one.

I’ve seen Roskam with Bush’s wife Laura:

I’ve seen Roskam with Bush’s evil VP Cheney:

I’ve seen Roskam with Bush’s Puppet Master Karl Rove:

karlrove_peterroskam_sm.jpg

And I’ve seen Roskam with Bush’s designated successor John McCain:

mccain_roskam.jpg

But I’ve never seen Roskam and Bush together.

Bush supposedly appeared at a fundraiser with Roskam and Denny Hastert in October 2006 but I can’t find a photographic record of it. Did anybody actually see them together or did Peter suddenly leave the room before Bush took the stage?

And look at Roskam’s voting record – he’s George Bush’s Congressional alter-ego:

Issue Bush Position Roskam Position
War in Iraq Don't stop war Don't stop war
Legality of torture Don't outlaw Don't outlaw
Minimum wage No raise for workers No Raise for workers
Executive compensation No shareholder vote No shareholder vote
Alternative Minimum Tax No cut for middle class No cut for middle class
New OSHA standard for popcorn workers Don't protect workers Don't protect workers
Protection of gay people from workplace discrimination No protection No protection
Federal law against hate crimes No law No law
Funding for improved air traffic control No funding No funding
Funding for services for injured veterans No funding No funding
Funding for childrens' health care No increase No increase

So you can’t blame me for wondering whether they are one and the same person.

But to test my theory, I am running a little contest. The first reader to send me an undoctored .jpg image of George Bush and Peter Roskam standing next to each other will receive a wonderful prize: a copy of Paul Krugman’s book “The Conscience of a Liberaland a copy of Barry Goldwater’s book “The Conscience of a Conservative“. (RSR is nothing if not fair and balanced.) The books are brand spankin’ new. Just ordered them from Amazon.

And, if the picture includes such public display of affection as shown in the photo below, the winner will receive a special bonus prize, the beautiful Greenpeace: Standing Up for the Earth Calendar 2009.

So get to work and prove me wrong. And don’t be disappointed if I am wrong because voting for Roskam will still be just like voting for Bush.

Send your entry to rubberstamproskam@gmail.com.

If we’re talking about the way Roskam does his job, I’d have to agree. Doesn’t take much brain power to just do as you are told by the White House, the Republican Caucus and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Roskam was talking to Reid Wilson of the National Journal in a story about Roskam’s freshman Republican class. Asked about retaining his seat, Roskam’s smug reply was:

To survive, Roskam said, he’s relying on an old approach. “Play University of Michigan football: Three yards and a cloud of dust, and a short little pass at the end,” he said, laughing. “This is not rocket science. Returning your calls, returning your mail. We’ve helped 1,000 constituents in our district office.”

I think what Roskam was trying to refer to was Woody Hayes and his Ohio State team’s reliance on the fundamentals. For Roskam, if you answer a few constituent emails and phone calls, help a few people with their paperwork you’re OK. You don’t need to worry about your voting record. Your constituents won’t know or care. Kind of arrogant, don’t you think? Well I think that Roskam is seriously mistaken and and that he’s going to have to answer for his lousy voting record this fall.

I received an email newsletter from the DCCC yesterday. They announced their expanded list of 75 target seats and Roskam’s is included, along with fellow Bush toady Mark Kirk. And since it looks like NRCC is not going to fund Oberweis’ rematch against Foster, maybe DCCC will have more money to spend against Roskam and Kirk. I think Roskam is vulnerable if Jill Morgenthaler will start telling the story of his slavish obedience to the White House and to corporate interests and his callous disregard of the interests of his constituents.

Page 1 of 812345...Last »