Friday, October 04, 2013

Who Is Charlie Dent?

We've all heard LV Congressman Charlie Dent called a RINO. Extreme liberals have vilified him as an arch-conservative. Yesterday, Morning Call Columnist Bill White suggested Dent might really be a MINO (moderate in name only), an acronym Bill just invented.
\
What does Charlie Dent think he is?

“I’m a center-right candidate in a center-right district in a center-right country.”

That's what he told Roll Call. Is he worried that bucking his own party will guarantee a challenger?

"I don’t govern out of fear.”

25 comments:

Tea Party Footsoldier said...

a rino

Anonymous said...

Tea Party Footsoldier - really you guys are the rino's. You are only Republican in name, because it is a two party system. If you created your 3rd party, you would be allowed to vote in the run-offs. I am a Republican and I am thrilled with Charlie Dent. He has way more common sense in this matter than any of you rino's have. You should be ashamed of yourselves hold the government and the people of this country hostage. But you are not. You are still down to name calling, holding your breath, and yelling obscenities at people. You deserve the government you get. Why don't you all leave the union and go and build your own country in Puerto Rico?

Anonymous said...

Common sense will win him no friends amongst the teabaggers.

Tea Party Footsoldier said...

@12:07 The 9-12 project embodies a Reagan style of conservative thought embraced by such NGO's as Americans for Prosperity, The National Liberty Foundation, The Family Research Council and many more. The moderate R's like Dent have had a stranglehold on the party for too long, the time may come when we are forced to form a third party but in the mean time we will try to regain control of what we lost in 90's

Anonymous said...

It is good to see you teabaggers are "swinging" inot action. some people just don't have the balls to be good teabaggers. So hang in there guys. The LIBTARDS DON'T KNOW SQUAT AOBUT THE TERABAGGERS THEY ENVY!

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work Charlie. That is why you are supported by people of all parties locally. You actually think and reason.

Anonymous said...

rather have a sister in a whore house the a brother who is a teabagger - or any other politician for that matter

A.J. Urbano

Lighthouse said...

I think Tennyson pretty much summed up the role of the foot soldier:

"Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."

Rep. Dent on the other hand: while I do not agree with all of his votes (e.g., SNAP), I can still respect him. We need more centrists in both parties. He is correct, we are moderately center-right on the whole, whether we call ourselves Ds, Rs, or independents.

You Could Look It Up said...

Charlie Dent is a guy who said Callahan's Bethlehem performance was a tawdry sham. Charlie Dent is a guy who said pay-to-play was standard operating procedure in Callahan's Bethlehem and that John is not to be trusted. This isn't ancient history, either. It was just a couple of years ago. In the interim, Callahan has covered up family misconduct, borrowed money to make city payroll, and taken gobs of money from those who do business in NorCo. Oh yeah, he also berated a volunteer wrestling referee, disrupting a kids' sporting event until he was ejected. Charlie Dent is the kind of guy who warned us in blinking lights about the kind of guy Callahan is.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the Democratic Party, Charlie. I always knew you were one of us.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Charlie can explain how his original desire was for a clean, no strings attached bill. Just a few days later, he now pushes for a repeal of the medical device tax before any resolution is passed. Think maybe he received a few phone calls from donors? Think maybe his original "cave" didn't get the reception he expected?

Wonder how Charlie stands on a removal of special Obamacare considerations for Congress members?

Just asking.

Fred Windish

Bernie O'Hare said...

Fred, for years, Dent has opposed the medical device tax. I know bc I wrote about it several times, both before and after Obamacare was passed. In this area particularly, that tax is a disaster. Dent voted for a CR that contained a medical device tax repeal. It was rejected. He voted for a CR that defunded Obamacare. That, too, was rejected. The votes just aren't there. His primary motivation is to govern. You can't govern by blackmail.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

The point is, there are WAY too many questions about Obamacare. Even after roughly 4 years! So far, the roll-out is clearly NOT working.

Reports from at least four states indicate the number of people who actually enroll is less than 1%. At 10 times that rate, the system will fail. Some actually believe, including me, folks are going on line and finding out "Gee, this really isn't free!" For them, the emergency room still looks like the best choice.

As for Charlie, and I suspect other members of Congress, they would like this whole discussion to go away quickly. If nothing else, this too-early, poorly designed roll-out is shining an unkind light on the government and some of its representatives.

Even if Charlie has always been against the medical device tax, that shouldn't mean his efforts to "accept things as they are" because there are not enough votes should constitute walking off the battlefield. If football teams chose not to come out of the locker room at halftime because they they are down 24-0, they are NOT serving their fans.

Again, a one year delay on Obamacare implementation is the best choice - EVEN FOR THE DEMOCRATS!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:47, delay is code for destroy. You folks tipped your hand years ago and today no one, no one trusts your sweet proposal.

Republicans have been delaying meaningful healthcare reform for over 70 years because they don't believe in it. Just as they do not believe in social security or Medicare.

Sorry can't negotiate with terrorists.

Occupy Saul Alinsky said...

To Do List:

1) Negotiate with al Qaeda and Iran.

2) Call political opponents terrorists.

3) 9:30 tee time - still can't break 100 :(

4) PM - QT with Reggie Love <3

Anonymous said...

1:15pm-

Sorry I forgot to identify myself as the poster of 11:47am.

I truly believe a two party system is healthy. Each side having a different view about what's best for our country and its citizens. We are STILL free to choose our path, are we not? I will not call you names.

This is a VERY Liberal area. Most democrats will still win next time around despite a delay/change in Obamacare. You'll be OK.

Across the country, however, a different story is emerging. The roll-out has finally caused folks to look into what's involved here. So far, way too many are NOT happy with what they discover.

My guess is, Boehner is willing to offer up a huge concession on the debt ceiling issue coming up in exchange for Obama throwing a bone his way with some kind of delay/change in Obamacare so that Boehner can feel victorious.

I have not been very pleased with Boehner's lack of leadership. I will likely change my registration to something other than Republican after the next Primary. Now, THAT should make you happy!

Anonymous said...

Oops!

Forgot once again. I am Fred Windish. Who are you?

Anonymous said...

Obama is not going to budge on the Law. It is as simple as that. It is up to the teabaggers whether or not they want to destroy the credibility of the nation over their anger.

Phil O'Buster

Peter J.Cochran said...

I too think Mr.Dent is using real sense . He even came to my union table where we were eating some years back. I say don't fault Mr. Dent for this Washington , stoppage in government.

not so casual observer said...

Charlie Dent is a hard working honest Congressman. Where you place him on the philiosophical chart is a subjective decision. The thing to remember is that e is honest, he is hardwork, morally sound, and listens to his constituents. He cares about people and does things no one ever heard about to help people (out of his own pocket)
You can disagree with his vote but not his motive.

Pesky Constitutionalist said...

Charlie Dent supports passage of an unconstitutional tax bill. Obamacare was declared constitutional as a tax. But the bill was introduced in 2009 as "the Senate health care bill" (which it's still called on Harry Reid's website. Tax bills must originate in the House; not the Senate. A new challenge based on the Origination Clause is about to be made in federal court by House members, led by Trent Franks (R-AZ).

Anonymous said...

Listen closely to the folks--his days are numbered

Chris Miller said...

Lighthouse
Would you call the Founders centerists? Dent is a centerist and he is not John Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Mason and many others. Charlie is in favoe of abortion, did nothing to help Terri Shivoe, and will not move to impeach Obama or Holter. Last but not least, Charlie is not a cowboy and right now we need cowboys

Lighthouse said...

Mr. Miller,
as you know, compared to the monarchies that dominated the world in the 1700s, of course for THEIR time they were not centrists. However, they were able to take the writings of Locke, Rouseau, Montesquieu and synthesize it with the gradual evolution of the British from the Magna Carta through the English Bill of Rights to have a sense that the social contract was being violated.

However, that was "their" time. But even for "their" time, they were playing with fire, as during the period of the Articles of Conferderation that very same rhetoric was threatening to destroy the republic. We couldn't even address Shay's rebellion. So the Founders did indeed create a wonderful hybrid experiment that took elements of a unitary system of government (that they rejected from the British), and a confederal system (of which the Articles of Confederation was a failure), in order to create our federal system.

But they also created a presidential system instead of a parliamentary system (where the executive comes from the legislative majority). In that separation of powers, without accounting for parties (which one could argue from Federalist 10, they hoped we would not have)they created the potential for divided government (different parties controlling the branches). This worked great for most of our history, as divided government was typically resolved with the parties/branches compromising, or gridlock.

I know some who like to look back and say Reagan worked with a divided govt, as did Clinton, et al. However, the parties have become much more ideologically pure. I am sure that appeals to you Mr. Miller. However, with conservative S. Dems going Republican, and the Republicans driving out the moderate "RINOs", the old way of working through divided government isn't working. And now that the Tea Nuts are willfully purusing a default of nation (a purely self-inflicted poison, I might add) in order to use it as "leverage" (Cruz's words) to essentially nullify the legitimacy of the executive branch. The very slippery slope is this becomes de facto institutionalized and every year becomes this game of "do this or we'll refuse to pay the bills and default" -- essentially a willingness to destroy our constitutional-presidential (rather than parliamentary) style of government. If the tables were turned, and it was the Democrats doing this to say Bush over Iraq, you would hypocritically be screaming bloody murder. And like the filibuster heartburn, rest assured, the tables will turn, as they always do.

So, I reject your simplistic "would you call the Founers centrists" question.

Lighthouse said...

Actually, if by "centrists" we mean "pragmatic" and "realistic" despite personally ticking left or right on various issues, then actually one could argue that yes, indeed, they were centrists by the time they wrote the Constitution. After all the Constitution was a product of COMPROMISE...for the purely political reason of getting it done. The "Great Compromise" that gave us a bicameral legislature. The "3/5 Compromise" which perpetuated slaverly but assured the southern states would accept the Constitution. What kind of an Executive should we have (singular, a committee) and how chosen (by Congress, the states, direct election ...ultimately an electoral college). And so forth.

So, Mr. Miller, if they had dug in their heals, and not been centrists enough, NO we would not have the great Constitution that we have and that the Tea folks claim to love so much.