Recently in Congress Category

Funny how a Democratic President can remind all Members of Congress that they hold the power of the purse and do not have to accept an out-of-control executive branch. As CQ Politics David Nather reports after the House voted 429-2 to negate an Obama Administration signing statement:

Cut off the money? Congress can do that? Well, yes, that's one of the most basic oversight tools Congress has. It's just odd that no one remembered that during the years when President George W. Bush was burying the Hill in signing statements, and making far more sweeping claims of executive power than Obama has.

Ah, yes, this highlights another problem. Yes, it is hypocritical for Congressional Republicans to suddenly remember they have an oversight role in our Constitutional Republic. (Does one get a headache after such a sudden revelation?) But, for me, the bigger problem lies with the Obama Administration continuing to issue signing statements after all we experienced over the past eight years.

Better choices, please.

AOL News' Daily Pulse asks: How Funny Was He?

My answer? Very.

(Hat tip: Atrios.)

Digby, as is so often the case, helps to put the Boston Globe's story about the president's extraconstitutional claims into a larger context:

At what point does this country begin to recognise that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis?

Somebody asked Howard Dean the other day whether he thought Bush should be impeached and I wished that he had answered by pointing out that the Republicans lowered the bar so low that it's difficult to see how he could NOT be impeached.

...

That is what the leadership of the GOP believes. We are watching it in action. A president can be impeached for lying about a private sexual matter but "morally serious men and women" understand that a president could "shade the truth" in order to serve the common good.

Are we all clear on how this works now? Lying about fellatio leads to lethal abuse of power by the state. Flatly refusing to obey the laws he signed and lying about national security serves the common good. This is your modern Republican party in a nutshell: A dictatorship of puritanical busybodies.

As the right-wing attack machine gears up to try to destroy the man who dared get an indictment of (former) House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, ThinkProgress does an excellent job of reminding us all about The Truth About Ronnie Earle.

For example, those pesky facts such as how he has prosecuted four times as many Democrats as Republicans during his career.

Hmmm...perhaps that climate change thing is a problem. The New York Times' Andrew C. Revkin reports about changes that should worry us:

The floating cap of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean shrank this summer to what is probably its smallest size in a century, continuing a trend toward less summer ice that is hard to explain without attributing it in part to human-caused global warming, various experts on the region said today.

It also appears that the change is becoming self sustaining, with the increased open water absorbing solar energy that would be reflected back into space by bright white ice, said Ted A. Scambos, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., which compiled the data along with NASA.

"Feedbacks in the system are starting to take hold," Dr. Scambos said. "The consecutive record-low extents make it pretty certain a long-term decline is underway."

Joe at Americablog does a nice job of explaining why a group of radical politicians is about to radically change the United States Senate by invoking the nuclear option.

Major papers seem to think this is the week of the nuclear option. And, when you read the articles one thing is clear: It is all about the theocracy. This issue is being driven by radical religious leaders who want to impose their extreme views on the rest of us.

But on this subject, as with so many others, we need to make sure the buck stops in the right place. What does President Bush think of his supporters' radical words threatening our independent judiciary? As Schumer explained:

"I am making a heartfelt plea to you, Mr. President. When you came to Washington, you said you wanted to change the climate in D.C.," Schumer said. "Those stating these abhorrent views count themselves as your political allies. One word from you will bring a halt to these un-American statements. That would be a way to strengthen democracy here at home."

We will not get it. So, while we condemn those who hate our judiciary and our Constitutional system of government, let us not forget who has decided to be their chief enabler because it plays well with his political base.

Everytime you see a reporter refer to the radical right's determination to end filibusters for judicial nominees as something the Democrats call the nuclear option, please send the reporter a note reminding him or her that the phrase "nuclear option" was first uttered by Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss.

Josh Marshall lays out all the research in this great post.

Perhaps we can start with the radical right's favorite newspaper, the New York Times, where reporter David Kirkpatrick was quick to respond to the right's focus group findings by writing:

Current Senate rules require 60 votes to close debate on a confirmation, allowing Democrats to thwart the action by mustering 41 votes. Republicans want to lower the threshold for closing debate on all nominations to a simple majority. Democrats call this the nuclear option, while Republicans call this a constitutional option.

Anyway, I am sure our radical right leaders are pleased with how quickly some reporters are willing to jump to respond to their latest set of linguistic instructions.

James Wolcott makes an important observation:

Why is Barbara Boxer out there all alone asking the tough questions about Condi Rice's snail trail of deceit and fearmongering? She has the audacity to act as if the Senate actually has some traditional advise-and-consent role to play and for her pains is caricatured as a shrieking harridan on Saturday Night Live and a witch on talk radio.

Oh, yeah. That's right. It doesn't. How about that.

At some point the Senate Democrats have to take a stand. Don't they?

The Hill reports on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's deliberations over whether to use the so-called "nuclear option" to change the Senate's rules to end the practice of filibusters on judicial nominations. As Alexander Bolton explains:

A more narrow interpretation of Frist’s statement is that he declined to acquiesce on the section of Rule 22 that governs ending debate on an amendment to the rules. In the last Congress, most Senate experts interpreted Rule 22 to require a vote of two-thirds of the Senate to end debate on a proposed rules change. By declining to accept that reading, Frist could make a rules change with a simple majority vote. That tactic is known as the “nuclear option” because it would likely melt relations between Republicans and Democrats.

Nor will hypocrisy slow the GOP down. Take, for example, this instance uncovered by the Center for American Progress of Frist himself joining in a filibuster of one of President Clinton's judicial nominees.

We have learned by hard examples that the GOP Congressional leadership is ready to play hardball. Are the Senate Democrats ready for this fight?

Um. Hello? National media? This story is a big, big deal.

With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.

Section 5. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum..." (emphasis added)

Really, how moronic must we be to listen to these people lecture us about original intent after they pull such a stunt? The only intent they care about is their own to have power at any cost.

"I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways - first, I think it's unconstitutional," said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel created to study the issue. "It's a very foolish thing to do, I believe, and the way in which it was done was more foolish."

GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules package that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes, most of which were dropped.

Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress - are required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or declaring war.

But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer will be needed to do business under ``catastrophic circumstances.''

But instead of taking the threat seriously, they pass an unconstitutional provision. Buried within another bill.

Let me know when the Republican Party wants to take these issues seriously -- because people serious about this threat never would have considered such unconstitutional foolishness.

(Thanks to Air America Radio's Randi Rhodes for making this an issue.)

One of the occasionally independent-mindeduncooperative committee chairpersons removed from his post by the House Republican leadership this week was the Veterans Affairs Committee Chairperson.

The offense? As the Washington Post's Mike Allen writes:

House leaders also replaced Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), who was beloved by veterans and did not hold down spending the way leaders wanted. The new chairman is Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), who convinced party leaders during a rigorous job interview that he would be tougher.

A leadership aide described Smith as "just not a team player." To underscore their point, leaders not only demoted Smith but also removed him from the committee.

Dennis Cullinan, national legislative service director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), said it would be an “absolute disaster” that “such an effective chairman would be removed for political reasons.”

He said it would send the wrong message to U.S. troops, adding, “We’re at war.”

Nice.

Smith's demotion likely is just an appetizer. Look for the Republicans to team up with the Bush Administration to slash Veterans benefits because they are supposedly too expensive.

Because, as we all know, irresponsible tax cuts for the rich are far more important to the GOP.

Here's a good summation of the House Republicans' opening week, during which their leadership centralized control, weakened ethics rules, and removed occasionally independent-mindeduncooperative committee chairpersons:

"It took Democrats 40 years to get as arrogant as we have become in 10," one Republican leadership aide said.

The cult of personality surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay may now lead the House Republican hypocrites to relax the chamber's ethics rules. As the Washington Post's Mike Allen and Charles Babington report:

House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber's fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.

The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers -- including Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.

My fellow Americans, are you really going to continue to listen to these people lecture you on morality and ethics?

Media Matters for America has compiled an excellent report outlining how the media is assisting the Republican Slime Machine in its efforts to defame Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Ronnie Earle -- the man investigating House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his associates.

If you look at the Media Matters report, you can see how the so-called liberal media is repeating the GOP talking point that Earle is going after DeLay only for partisan reasons.

Of course, you aren't hearing that Earle has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans. Such a fact does not fit the narrative, after all.

But, as Media Matters notes:

While Earle is an elected Democrat, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, a June 17 editorial in the Houston Chronicle commended his work: "During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts." This assertion supports Earle's own claim about his record; a March 6 article in the El Paso Times reported: "Earle says local prosecution is fundamental and points out that 11 of the 15 politicians he has prosecuted over the years were Democrats."

Let's be clear: despite the conservative media's talking points, there is no evidence that Earle is a partisan hack. There is, however, much evidence that DeLay and many of his supporters -- especially those who rolled over and changed the rule prohibiting people under indictment from holding GOP leadership positions -- are.

For the second time in five years, the House Ethics Committee has criticized House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Could, as Norman Ornstein has said, the "drip, drip, drip" of scandal leave DeLay finally vulnerable?

Steve Clemons explains how removing DeLay from power would help a host of moderate to progressive causes.

These past few years, I've had the opportunity to speak about a very wide set of policy topics -- often to very liberal and progressive audiences concerned about some specific policy area -- like global environmental sustainability, wealth distribution, a more progressive foreign policy agenda, and lots of other less lofty policy initiatives.

After a while, I began to realize that if there was a "silver bullet" answer to making many of these areas they and I cared about better, it was the removal of Tom DeLay from his leadership position in the House and his party. Nearly all policy arenas improve with DeLay's resignation.

So, my message has been to try and focus on legally challenging the man -- suing him for his misdeeds -- highlighting the lengths he has gone to undermine the checks and balances of the American political system and to controlling and corrupting many of the civil society institutions that surround policymakers.