OK, this is nuts.
I called Diane Watson's office in Washington this morning. Watson represents the 33rd Congressional District in Los Angeles. I've voted for her ever since the borders of the CD changed and she became my Congressperson.
I asked the woman who picked up the phone, who identified herself as "Kelsey," whether the Representative has taken a position on HR 333, the Kucinich bill to impeach Cheney. Kelsey said she was not allowed to give out that information. I asked why not. Kelsey said no one was allowed to be quoted on Watson's positions. I said does that mean you can't even tell me yes or no, that I can't find out her position on any legislation? Yes, she said.
I said that didn't make sense, she's a public official, I have a right to know where she stands. We're in Kafka crazy land by now. Kelsey repeated that she wasn't allowed to give out that information. I said I would write a diary here. That really impressed her. Same response, not allowed to give out that information. To be sure, I asked again: Are you saying that only the Congresswoman is allowed to say what her positions are and that otherwise it's a secret? Yes.
What??!!??
I know a wall when I hit one. I told Kelsey I really needed to talk to someone else in the office. She put me on hold for a couple of minutes and came back saying no one was there who could speak with me.
Oh, my party I weep for you. What kind of member of Congress keeps her positions on bills before the body as privileged information? Is Kelsey just some summer intern who over-interpreted her instructions not to get into policy discussions with the press or constituents? Or has Watson drunk the Kool Aid?
Perhaps you'd like to call and see if you get the same response. I'm interested in hearing how long it takes for this office to get rea. Or find out that we sort of live in a democracy: 202-225-7084.
UPDATE: I spoke to another phone answerer who repeated the original assertion that the Representative's position on legislation was secret. She said I could be anyone and if she told me, everyone would know. She did, however, offer to let me speak to someone who could "explain it better" than she could.
I ended up having a substantive conversation with Gregory Adams, Rep. Watson's legislative director. It turns out she does have a position on impeachment. It is essentially the leadership position. Impeachment would be a "fundamental distraction," specifcially from ending the war. That the American public isn't there. That impeachment is essentially a poltical process and won't help to defeat "Bushism" and in fact could jeopardize the election in 2008. He heard me out, I heard him out. We agreed to disagree.
BTW he said Rep. Watson and Chairman Conyers are close and he thought it unlikely that he's looking for three more members to sign on to impeachment. His feeling was if that was the case Rep. Watson would have been contacted.
I did find it helpful to speak to someone in the office who understood something about constituent relations at the very least and oh yeah, democracy. He said the Congressmember's positions of course are not secret and he would talk to the people who answer the phones.
Let me also mention that I got the impression that Rep. Watson's position could change. Mr. Adams struck me as reasonable and reasonably open. I suggest trying to reach him, particularly if you live in CA-33.