No! I’m dead serious! It’s in Title XVII, “Regulations Concerning the Disposition of Surplus Government Cheese with a Comment on Letters from Constituents to Congress Members.” It’s in the subparagraph 3.2.2.3, right after “Acceptable Limits on the Moisture Content of Cheddar and Other Aged English Cheeses.”
Wait, no, I’m only kidding. There is no such regulation.
Is it at all possible that Stark didn’t really leave the voice-mail?
I find it hard to imagine a politician stupid enough to leave a record of such a ridiculous response. Might it have been a staffer, or a hoax?
Or is Stark really that stupid, and represents a district that is so ga-ga liberal, that the voters would not think he was a flaming asshole for responding as he allegedly did?
Regards,
Shodan
I think Stark is pretty stupid, but that’s a matter of opinion.
That his district is ga-ga liberal, though, is undeniable fact. From Stark’s website:
Shodan:
Stark himself has admitted to recording the voice message. He’s not exactly repentant about it, either:
So, he apologizes for blasphemy, but not for calling a constituent stupid.
As i said before, i don’t think Dow is just any old constituent. He has been involved in Santa Clara County politics as a Republican for some time, and ran as a Republican candidate (losing) for California’s 20th District. His own campaign website is now redundant, but still forwards browsers to GeorgeWBush.com.
Also, when he was running for election, and his opponent was Democrat John Dutra, Dow registered the internet domain names JohnDutra.com, JohnDutra.net and JohnDutra.org, and used them to post criticisms of Dutra. Now it appears that this was legal, and it certainly falls well within the type of tactics that modern politicians frequently use, but for Dow to now turn around and accuse another politician of partisanship and politicization is pretty damn amusing, to say the least.
Note, also, that Dow’s letter to Stark singularly fails to address the actual reasons that Stark gave for voting against the bill. Dow makes no effort to defend the language of the bill, or the exclusion from it of some of the issues that Stark and other Democrats called for. His letter is no more or less “politicization of this War” than Stark’s vote was.
As for Mr. Moto:
So, let’s review. According to your citation, Stark’s district is characterized by the following:
[ul]
[li]part of a large metropolitan area[/li][li]culturally and ethnically mixed[/li][li]has a wildlife refuge[/li][li]is home to a busy shipping terminal[/li][li]has a university and two community colleges[/li][/ul] From this, we are to conclude that the district is “ga-ga liberal.”
Well, the district may well be one of the most liberal in the country, but i’m afraid that the logic of your argument is still pretty weak. You might want to tell all those poeple in South Dakota or Louisiana or Texas that the presence of wildlife refuges and community colleges are indicators of “ga-ga” liberalism.
Anybody who’s spent any time in the Bay Area knows that the area I referenced is very liberal indeed. I was just pointing out to Shodan where it was, and what towns it encompassed.
Ah, California politics! Always rib-ticklin’ good! 
All time is lost time.
If it please the court any, Stark has a reputation as being a major-league asshole that dates back to at least the late 1980’s, if not earlier.
(Don’t believe me? Look for older copies of “Politics in America”)
[QUOTE
Wait, no, I’m only kidding. There is no such regulation.[/QUOTE]
Oh, ok.
If he’s such an asshole, Gov, why is he still in Congress? Since the late 80’s he has to have convinced his constituents two or three times that he’s their man. I’m not saying you’re wrong, mind you. I live in Southern California in a mostly Republican district. He doesn’t represent me, so I don’t know him very well. If he is a major-league asshole the only reason I can think of that he’s still a congressman is that his district couldn’t find a Republican that wasn’t a worse asshole. Just a theory. YMMV. 
Oh, there are assholes that are congressmen. Trust me. The people of his district probably just decided, en masse, that he was their asshole.
Stark is a good lefty fit in a lefty district. I’m sure he does good constituent service - unfucks Social Security, gets Granny her check. He gets into the news all the time, though not always for the best of things. But it keeps his name fresh in his voters’ minds.
I’m not sure, but I’ll bet he hasn’t faced a serious primary fight in a long while. And California districts are gerrymandered so they’re safe for either party. No Republican has a shot at winning the thirteenth.
He’ll have his seat for as long as he wants it, provided he doesn’t do something really stupid. Although, with Pete Stark this is an outside possibility.
This is why I asked about his district. Apparently it is so safely Democratic/liberal/out-of-touch that even this doesn’t qualify as “something really stupid”.
One wonders what it would take.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting that you seem to equate being a Democrat and/or a liberal with being “out-of-touch.”
If you’re going to accuse voters of being out of touch for continuing to re-elect a politician who does stupid things, you’d better start looking well beyond the Thirteenth District of California.
You want out of touch? Try a place where voters continue to re-elect a politician who believes that America would have avoided “all these problems” if a segregationist had been elected President in 1948.
No, I said that this district was so Democratic and/or liberal and/or out of touch that they don’t think Stark’s mini-rant was stupid.
Oooh, that was telling. By which I meant “dumb”.
Now if Stark will apologize four or five times, instead of not even once, we could have a good analogy. But, as it stands, not very much.
Besides, DesertGeezer would argue that any politician who gets re-elected must be A-OK. Like Stark, Nixon, Adam Clayton Powell, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Please point out where the words “and/or” appear in your earlier thread.
Actually, i don’t think an apology by Stark would change the comparison very much at all. Lott can apologize all he wants; the meaning of his words was pretty clear. By apologizing, he gets the best of both worlds: the segregationists know he’s one of them, and he also gets to appease the moderates in his party.
Similarly with Stark, it’s pretty clear that he meant what he said, and an apology would be mere window dressing. If he soes apologize, i won’t believe for a minute that he doesn’t still believe that Dow is an idiot.
Hmmmm. You might have a point there. Nope! Re-elected doesn’t necessarily mean A-OK. It more likely means he’s the best (in the opinion of people who bother to vote) of the available lousy choices. (Hmmmm. Does “etc.” mean Reagan?)
Fair enough. And yes, Reagan counts. He was obviously the best of the available choices.
Of the last fifty years. 
Regards,
Shodan
Answering the question of “how does he keep winning re-election?”:
His district is solidly Democratic, and has actually gotten to be more and more so in recent years (demographic shifts, redistricting, etc.)
He’s independently wealthy (was a banker before entering Congress after the 1972 election). Any challenge to him would be rather expensive.
As far as I can tell, his only real close call was in 1972, when he defeated an aging and fairly conservative incumbent in the Democratic primary, and had problems in the general election due to the Nixon landslide.