Thoughts on Congressman Bill Johnson

Mike Lorenz (D) Mayor of Belpre, is the democrat candidate.  He had not primary opposition.  Apparently, no one believed they could beat Johnson.  I don't see Mike campaigning, as he spends most of his time socializing in Wendy's on Washington Blvd.  I've known Mike for 26 years and he's a good man.  I don't agree with some of his ideas, but that's OK. 

One of his best ideas when first elected Mayor of Belpre was to purchase 12 gauge shotgun shells for the police department, so they could kill the Canadian Geese that run riot at the Civitan park.  I thought is was a great idea, but some in Belpre didn't, so that came to a quick close.

Bill Johnson is an enigma to me.  Fairly conservative on social issues, which lines up with this district.  However, he supports never ending war funding and excessive, non-Constitutional spending.
Also, his votes to are local police departments with military equipment is concerning..... again, unconstitutional.

Previous posts on Bill Johnson

Here are some of the votes that are concerning to me.


Supports trace deals like NAFTA, this one just happens to be TPA.  We've already killed most of our manufacturing jobs, might as well kill them all!

H R 1314: Trade Act of 2015
Vote Date: June 12, 2015	Vote: AYE		Bad Vote.
Trade Promotion Authority. The House held separate roll call votes on the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) sections of H.R. 1314. The TPA portion of the bill would renew the on-again-offagain "fast track authority" that Congress has often awarded to the president over the past several decades. The essential features of TPA are: (1) Congress unconstitutionally delegates its constitutional authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" to the Executive Branch; and (2) Congress dramatically increases the probability of approval of foreign trade agreements by restricting itself to voting up or down by simple majority on the agreements, as negotiated and submitted by the president, with no ability to amend the agreements and with no possibility of filibusters in the Senate. So-called free-trade agreements that have already been passed under previously awarded "fast track authority," such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the currently proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), have in common a structure and purpose that would create supranational political entities that would supersede the national independence of the United States. Genuine free trade would mean the absence of government involvement, but these agreements entail more than just trade and put the United States on a trajectory to regional governance similar to Europe's trajectory from a Common Market to the EU. The House agreed to the TPA section of H.R. 1314 on June 12, 2015 by a vote of 219 to 211 (Roll Call 362). We have assigned pluses to the nays because TPA would facilitate the subordination of the national independence of the United States to regional trading blocs. Is completely wrong on Ukraine.  He has drank the CIA/State Department Cool-Aid.  We sponsored a coup in Ukraine to poke a stick at Russia, then blamed Russia for it.  And our politicians are 100% on board with messing around on the other side of the world, apparently wanting a war with Russia. H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Vote Date: March 23, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote. Ukraine Military Aid. House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia. The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities   Then voting to put the US taxpayer on the hook for loans to Ukraine, which, wouldn't have been needed if the US hadn't stage a coup in that country to begin with! H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine Vote Date: April 1, 2014 Vote: AYE Bad Vote. Ukraine Aid. This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. [ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ] The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments. Voted against "country of origin" labeling on food products.  WHY? H R 2393: Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 Vote Date: June 10, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote. Country of Origin Labeling. The proposed Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 (H.R. 2393) would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal the requirements of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef, chicken, and pork sold in the United States. This vote came after the World Trade Organization's recent ruling against an appeal from the United States to keep its COOL. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) opposed passage of the bill to repeal COOL. From the House floor, Massie elaborated: "What is the World Trade Organization, and who are they to tell Congress what laws we have to pass? These judges weren't appointed by the President. They weren't confirmed by the Senate. These are not judges from our Constitution. These are extra-constitutional judges, yet they are telling us here in Congress you have got to do this or there will be repercussions." The House passed H.R. 2393 on June 10, 2015 by a vote of 300 to 131 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill would cede national sovereignty over food-related choices and regulations to the WTO. Moreover, this bill would prevent American consumers from knowing where their food comes from.

OK with the government spying on you

H R 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015
Vote Date: April 23, 2015	Vote: AYE		Bad Vote.
Cyberspace Intelligence Sharing. The proposed National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act (NCPA) of 2015 (H.R. 1731) would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to expand the role of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity and Communication Integration Center, designating it the principal federal entity to receive and disseminate information about cyberspace threats from and to private companies and other federal agencies. Expressing opposition to both H.R. 1731 and H.R. 1560, another related cybersecurity intelligence bill, Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said, "As drafted, these bills violate the Fourth Amendment, override privacy laws, and give the government unwarranted access to the personal information of potentially millions of Americans." The House passed H.R. 1731 on April 23, 2015 by a vote of 355 to 63 (Roll Call 173). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill would further empower the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security, erode the privacy protections enshrined in the Constitution, and gradually move the United States closer to becoming a police state.

Spying again.

H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 69 to H R 4870
Vote Date: June 19, 2014	Vote: NAY		Bad Vote.
Surveillance. During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to prevent defense funds from being used to allow U.S. intelligence agencies to sift through electronic metadata that contains the personal information of U.S. citizens or legal residents. Massie's amendment would also prohibit funds from being used by the NSA for "backdoor" surveillance - requiring or requesting the redesign of a product to facilitate the electronic surveillance of a person who uses it. As Massie said during debate on his amendment, "The American people are sick of being spied on. Our Founding Fathers wrote an important provision into the Bill of Rights - the Fourth Amendment - and that requires probable cause and a warrant before the government and government agents can snoop on any American." The House adopted Massie's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 293-123 (Roll Call 327). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Massie's amendment seeks to uphold the Constitution and its protection of privacy rights. Any attempt to curtail the surveillance state and restore constitutional protections to Americans is good.

Use of Military force, how long are we, the citizens, through our elected Representatives going to give the Executive a blank check to conduct war?  Apparently, Bill Johnson wants endless wars.  Even if that's not the case, this Authorization needs to expire and have a debate in Congress on whether to keep bombing people on the other side of the globe. 

H R 4909: Use of Military Force
Vote Date: May 18, 2016	Vote: NAY		Bad Vote.
During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere. H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 56 to H R 4870 Vote Date: June 19, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote. Military Operations in Afghanistan. During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment that would have barred any funding in the bill from being used "pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF] ... after December 31, 2014," the date that was set as the official end of U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan. Enacted in 2001 in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere. The House rejected Lee's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 157 to 260 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision and under the Constitution only Congress may "declare war." H R 4435: On Agreeing to the Amendment 17 to H R 4435 Vote Date: May 22, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote. Use of Military Force. During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2015 (NDAA, H.R. 4435), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to sunset the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force 12 months after the enactment of the 2015 NDAA. The House rejected Schiff's amendment on May 22, 2014 by a vote of 191 to 233 (Roll Call 237). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, while granted by Congress, gives the president almost unlimited powers to invade countries, overthrow governments, and assassinate people under the pretext of waging the "war on terror." Congress essentially handed over its constitutional authority to declare war to the executive branch, thus giving the executive unconstitutional abilities. Any attempt to end the Authorization for the Use of Military Force is a step in the right direction H R 2397: On Agreeing to the Amendment 64 to H R 2397 Vote Date: July 24, 2013 Vote: NAY Bad Vote. Military Intervention. During consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to prohibit funding for military actions after December 31, 2014 that are carried out pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). As Rep. Schiff noted: "The 2001 AUMF was never intended to authorize a war without end, and it now poorly defines those who pose a threat to our country. That authority and the funding that goes along with it should expire concurrent with the end of our combat role in Afghanistan." Schiff also noted: "The Constitution vests the Congress with the power to declare war and the responsibility of appropriating funds to pay for it. It is our most awesome responsibility and central to our military efforts overseas. We owe it to the men and women we send into combat to properly define and authorize their mission, and my amendment will effectively give Congress the next 16 months to do so." The House rejected Schiff's amendment on July 24, 2013 by a vote of 185 to 236 (Roll Call 410). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war and appropriate funds to pay for it. Authorizing the president to use military force without a declaration of war is a shifting of responsibility from Congress to the executive branch that essentially allows the president to exercise dictator-like powers and should be opposed. Supports Corporate Welfare H.R. 2072: Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012 Vote Date: May 9, 2012 Vote: AYE Bad Vote. Export-Import Bank. This legislation (H.R. 2072) reauthorized the U.S. Export-Import Bank for two years and increased the agency's lending cap from $100 billion to $140 billion. The bank issues loans and loan guarantees to foreign governments or companies for the purchase of U.S. products. The House passed H.R. 2072 on May 9, 2012 by a vote of 330 to 93 (Roll Call 224). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government has no constitutional authority risking taxpayers' money to provide loans and terms that the private sector considers too risky to provide. Indeed, U.S. government-backed export financing is a form of corporate welfare, and if the Ex-Im Bank goes bust (as happened to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), the taxpayers will get stuck holding the bag. You can read more and more here.

So you still think the "middle" class was exempt from this tax "deal"?

Here's what I've been saying, someone making $30,000, their taxes will raise more proportionally than someone making between $200,000 and $500,000.

In other words, never believe what a politician says, believe only what they do.

Congressman Bill Johnson said in this statement on 1/2/13: "Now that an agreement has been reached to prevent going over the fiscal cliff and permanently cut taxes on 99 percent of the American people" 

 He's playing fast and loose with facts and using George Orwell speak to confuse us.

The real number is 80% of all taxpayers will pay more taxes, due to his vote.

In 2001 the "Bush" tax cuts went into effect.

This, so called, fiscal cliff deal merely extended or made permanent the tax cuts that took effect in 2001, with the exception of those making more the $400,000/yr.

So, his vote did not cut any taxes, it did the exact opposite.  This "deal" raised the social security payroll taxes by 2% of one's income.  So if you make $50,000 a year, you'll pay an additional $1000.

Yet, this Congressman tries to have us believe that tax bill he voted for only raised taxes on those with income above $400,000 and "cut taxes on 99% of the American people"!!!

Bottom line is Bill Johnson's vote did this:

• made permanent (as permanent as things are in Washington) the tax rates that have been in effect since 2001

• That is with the exception of those making over $400,000, their rates went up.

• Raised social security tax (on everyone) an additional 2%

• The net result of this joke of an unneeded bill and all the fake hystericals around it, is this.  One making $30k/yr ends up paying more taxes proportionally than one making 200k - 500k.

• Raised the death tax rate to 40%.  So a son who inherits his father's farming operation has to pay an additional 5% tax(this is on top of the original 35%), just to keep the farm in the family.  We've got a real joke of a government It's sickening to think of all the local government officials smirking with anticipation when they hear about a local wealthy individual on their death beds.....wondering what their cut will be.

That's a far cry from Johnson's claim he "cut taxes on 99% of the American people".  I'd try to explain away this vote if I were him, as it is exactly opposite of what he said he would do in the past!  What is it about Washington that sucks the principles right out of some people? 

Representative Bill Johnson plays George Orwell

He can try to spin (lie, wiggle, reword, rephrase, distort, etc, etc..) about his vote, but the fact is he voted to raise taxes on every working person in his district.

His words in his latest "press" release:  "permanently cut taxes on 99 percent of the American people"  Um, we just received a 2% tax increase on our payroll taxes thanks to this bill he voted for.
How does this jive with his claim that he cut taxes for 99% of Americans?  It doesn't.

Again, He claims he voted to "permanently cut taxes on 99 percent of the American people".  How can that be?  The rates stayed the same for some and went up for others and went down for no one.  How is this a tax cut?


"Bill Johnson Votes to Protect Middle Class Families"

Washington, Jan 2 -

Congressman Bill Johnson (R-Marietta) released the following statement after voting in favor of the Senate’s proposed agreement to avert the fiscal cliff.
 "Washington has a spending problem that threatens the prosperity of our children and grandchildren. Now that an agreement has been reached to prevent going over the fiscal cliff and permanently cut taxes on 99 percent of the American people, the table has been cleared to tackle the out-of-control federal spending that has amassed a $16 trillion national debt head-on."
"As we start a new year, it is critically important for the President and Senate to work together with the House on the big issues that are driving our debt and stifling job creation. We must strengthen and preserve Medicare, overhaul Medicaid and completely reform our tax code. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to solve our fiscal challenges now so that they may have the same access to the American Dream that our generation has been blessed with."

Can someone tell me why I should vote for Bill Johsnon again?

Congressman Bill Johnson votes for this joke of a bill.

Raising taxes with no spending cuts.  Un-freaking-believable!  And I voted for this clown!  Not again.  I'm getting tired of the false choice of picking between the worst of two evils.

The problem is, they didn't even need his vote to pass this.  He voted for it anyway!  This tells me that he really thinks reducing our deficit can be done by increasing spending.  Where do we get these geniuses?

I expected quasi counterfeiter Steve Stivers to support this, as he thinks we can clip our coins and save money when making money.  An ancient and fraudulant money watering down scheme that he supports and leads.  Typical big government republican thinking, BTW.

However, Bill Johnson sells himself as a "conservative".  If this is being a conservative, I'd hate to see what a socialist looks like.

It's time to purge the republican party of these pretenders.  If that doesn't happen, it's time to purge the republican party altogether.

This is from Johnson's own house website:

Jobs & The Economy

  ".....Our government is building a national debt at a rate that we can’t afford – we’re leaving our children and grandchildren with a bill for which they shouldn’t be responsible. The first step is to balance the budget.....and hold spending in line in order to bring down the national debt.
We must create wealth, not distribute it. And we must reduce taxes. Today’s Federal tax code penalizes the wealthy and incentivizes the poor to subsist on entitlement programs. Reducing taxes at all levels of income will stimulate the economy both from the top down (allowing more investment in business and job creation) and from the bottom up (giving people more purchasing power)."

It's not what he says that's important, it's what he does and how he votes that matters.

So he, like many other GOP members, talk tough in campaign mode, but when it comes to casting principled, tough votes, he caves.  The tough talk quoted above, about reducing taxes, becomes a whimpering yes vote to raise taxes.
  
SICKENING! 



Link Here

WASHINGTON — Ohio’s congressional delegation voted with the majority to pass the agreement that avoided the so-called fiscal cliff of middle-class tax increases and spending cuts. All five House Democrats from Ohio voted in favor as the measure passed 257-167 Tuesday night. Ohio’s House Republicans split, six voting in favor and seven against. Those voting in favor were Democrats Marcia Fudge, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Tim Ryan and Betty Sutton, and Republicans John Boehner, Bill Johnson, Steve LaTourette, Robert Latta, Steve Stivers, and Pat Tiberi. Those voting against were Republicans Steve Austria, Steve Chabot, Bob Gibbs, Jim Jordan, Jim Renacci, Jean Schmidt and Michael Turner.

"Beam me up" to run for Congress again...maybe

Let's hope it's in the 6th.

Dispatch story here

He'd be a better Congressman than Comrade Charlie Wilson.

Here are my thoughts on him running in the 6th in a previous post.

Jimmy Stewart vs Charlie Wilson vs Jim Traficant vs Dennis Spisak

I've been doing some thinking recently about the 6th district and our disastrous Congressman Charlie Wilson.

Then with Jim Traficant's release from prison and his admittance that he is thinking about running for Congress....that would make an interesting race. One that could be won by a Republican.

You'd possibly have:

I: Traficant
G: Spisak
R: Stewart
D: Wilson

Who but Jimmy Stewart would come out ahead at the end of that race?

Here's why:

Traficant will pull votes from the northern counties. Especially among the so called Reagan Democrats and union members. If he could pull just 10% of the vote in the northern counties, that would be a game changer.

Dennis Spisak pulled 2% of the vote in 2006 and 5% in 2008. 3 reasons why he'll do better this year if he runs:

1. In 2006 the loons on the left wanted to vote for Strickland over the "evil" conservative Ken Blackwell. Wilson benefited from Strickland's coat tails. This gubernatorial election will not be so great for the socialists' chances. Especially since Kasich is already leading Strickland and the primaries haven't even happened yet! This leads me to believe that any obligation to vote for the democrat because he has a chance to win will be out the window. The green, earth first, "humane" society, tree huggers, car haters, coal haters, etc... will be free to vote their consciences. These people will vote for Spacick. Also, in 2008 Obama was on the ticket and dems were fired up to vote for him....for some reason....this brought lots of democrat voters to the polls. This is not the case now.
   
2. Spisak is on the ballot as a Green candidate. Not an independent. The above mentioned list of freaks will know who to vote for (if they have a question about who the green's are endorsing) because he's on the ballot as a Green candidate.
3. Charlie Wilson voted against the Cap and Tax bill. This enrages the loony left and then numbers 1 / 2 (above) come into play. Wilson's vote will give votes to Spisak in Athens and the commune communities around Amesville and other coal hating folks in the 6th.

Jimmy Stewart will do well in the southern counties (where he is well known and liked) and will pick up the GOP vote in the northern counties. If all he had going for him was this, he could win this under these circumstances. However, considering in one of the worst years to run as a Republican 2008, the GOP candidate (Richard "Dick" Stobbs, former Belmont County Sheriff) received 33%.....this was a candidate that was little known and little financed....under the absolute worst conditions the GOP candidate still received 33%. In 2006, Chuck Blasdel (former Ohio House member from the 1st district) received 38% of the vote against Comrade Wilson. Another little known and little financed candidate....and a bad year for Republicans.
So given that Jimmy Stewart is well known in his former House district and that he just won the 20th Senate district, he is a known entity with lot's of name ID. He also is rated A by the NRA and is endorsed by the Ohio Right to Life organization. Yes, the 6th district is a conservative district. Which is why Charlie Wilson pretends to be one.
All this being said, Jimmy Stewart should receive as a base vote around 40-42%. Then depending on his fundraising and campaigning, adding to that. Which he is a fund raiser and campaigner.


Which brings us to Charlie Wilson. Comrade Wilson has both the left and the right mad at him. (search Charlie Wilson on this blog and you'll see what I'm talking about) His vote for the so called "stimulus" bill has lost him support on the right. (remember, he pretends to be a conservative) and his vote against the Cap and Tax bill has the left angry with him. The only group he'll really be able to rely on are the dems that vote dem because, well they've always voted that way. Traficant will eat into this group up north.
This on top of the fact that he's never had to really fight to keep his job. Does he really even know how to campaign? He had to run as a write-in in 2006's primary due to not collecting 50 valid signatures for his petition.



So, if Jim Traficant were to run in the 6th district as an Independent, I do believe Jimmy Stewart would have a very good chance of winning. Due to the Spisak getting 7-9% and Traficant getting 1-2%. The assumption being (I think it's a fair assumption) that most of these votes would come from Wilson. If Stewart were to keep the 40% base and possibly add to it, it would turn to the GOP column.

I also think he'd have a decent shot even if "beem me up" were not to run. Looking as it does right now that 2010 could be a good GOP year.

One last thing. Can you imagine the attention a race like this would draw?

Jimmy Stewart running against ex-con Jim Traficant running against Charlie Wilson (I'm not Joe Wilson, or Charlie Wilson for that mater, but I voted to increase our national debt by the trillions) running against loony Spisak!

No Charlie, you're no Joe Wilson

Our Congressman Charlie Wilson wants folks to know that he is not Congressman Joe Wilson.

No Charlie, no one would confuse you with someone that could call a liar a liar.

While Joe Wilson fights our Disaster-in-Chief, Charlie Wilson rides around in Air Force one with him.

Charlie Wilson is too busy spending the country further into debt.



Too busy giving your tax money to convert human urine into some sort of fuel.

Charlie Wilson brags about voting for the disastrous "stimulus bill" while unemployment is almost 10% nationwide and 14% in Ohio....higher than that in his own district......and it continues to rise after this "stimulus". Which leads one to think that his vote had the effect of making the economy worse off.

Joe Wilson voted against the "stimulus bill".

Charlie Wilson holds "news conferences" at gas stations to complain about the high gas prices, yet does not say a word of support for drilling in Alaska.

Joe Wilson supports drilling in Alaska.

Too busy to sign on as a cosponsor of HR 1207. The common sense bill that would allow an audit of the Federal Reserve. Yes, that's right, there are no external audits of the Fed. The same fed, with it's cheap interest rates and fiat money that causes our business cycles...boom / bust cycles.

Joe Wilson is a co-sponsor.

Don't worry Charlie, no one could confuse you with Joe Wilson!

Don't be fooled, Space is no moderate...neither is Wilson

“The Blue Dog caucus represents a significant and effective check against the dangers of extremism when it comes to party politics,” said Blue Dog Rep. Zack Space (D-OH). “We understand that the left wing of our party doesn’t have it right all of the time. We understand that the Republican party doesn’t have it wrong all the time.”

Speaking of extremism....what is voting for the cap and tax bill if not extreme. The largest tax increase in US history is moderation?

Space is no moderate and neither is Comrade Wilson.

Apparently they are taking turns pretending to be conservatives. Space voted for the cap and tax bill while Bolshevik Charlie opposed it. Now Wilson supports the health care / taxpayer funding of abortions bill and Space is beating his chest like he's really standing up for his constituents....after the cap and tax vote, of course.

These two are lunatics that don't represent the values of southeastern Ohio.