Kangaroo Congress

Most ethical congress ever? Changing votes after banging the gavel then trying to cover it up by declaring the voting machine is broken? Nice. Hugo would be proud.

Is this what Nancy Pelosi meant by 'ethical?' Apparently she was using the loose definition of the term in order to encompass all the manifold variants of nuance that the word could possibly contain. Kind of a multi-interpretational approach.

In this case ethical means lying, cheating, and... stealing votes on the House Floor in addition to your basic public theft. (See here as well.)

Two Democrats changed their votes to ensure that the measure would fail, but then three Republicans did the same. The vote total was 215-213 in favor of the Republican motion to recommit. At that moment, Rep. Mike McNulty ( D-N.Y.), who was in the Speaker's chair, gavelled out the vote, thinking that it was a tie and the motion had failed. But he had miscounted — the motion had actually passed. The Democrats were only able to change this by cheating and changing more votes after the gavel.

Although they did not do so for hours, the House clerk's office finally did put a record of the vote online this morning, with the measure failing by a vote of 216-212.

McNulty, still in the chair, had to explain to Minority Leader Boehner (R-Ohio), during the parliamentary procedure that followed, that "the machine is down" — the machine that tells members what they are voting on and how they've voted. This drew groans, of course, since it was not hard to infer that it had been turned off after the crooked vote. Hoyer came back in the morning with a speech devoid of apology, but full of "tearful self-justification," calling for an Ethics Committee Inquiry. Boehner replied that the Ethics Committee is a "black hole," but maintained a conciliatory tone. ~corner.nationalreview.com


This is what Democrats mean by the 'democratic' process. It looks suspiciously like Venezuelan 'democracy'. When you don't get the results you like, cheat.

But then Democrats have always been on record for recounts when the vote doesn't go in their favor.

On a positive note McNulty did apologize for not executing the vote stealing more smoothly.

McNulty took to the floor Friday morning to apologize for his action.

“I want to express regret that I gaveled the vote too early,” McNulty said and apologized for his role in the confusion that rocked the House floor last night.

McNulty gaveled the motion to recommit closed at 214 to 214, when the final vote tally on the board was 213 to 215 after Florida Republican Reps. Mario Diaz Balart, Lincoln Diaz Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen changed their votes from a “no” to a “yes.”

“We went to the front of the House [to change our votes],”Rep. Mario Diaz Balart said, adding that the board had changed to the count of 213 to 215 in favor of the motion to recommit, and that the gavel went down but McNulty hadn’t seen the change.

“It stayed there for several minutes …then the votes started to change again,” he said, causing the vote to flip. “That’s when there was the meltdown.”

Diaz Balart said of McNulty, “It wasn’t done in malice that’s why he apologized.” ~thehill.com


House Erupts in Chaos (as Democrats fix vote.)

Posted by Eric Simonson at August 3, 2007 10:05 PM
Comments
Comment #228302
On a positive note McNulty did apologize for not executing the vote stealing more smoothly.

He stole that apology style from AG Gonzales. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at August 3, 2007 11:30 PM
Comment #228303

From your article:

Diaz Balart (R-Fla) said of McNulty, “It wasn’t done in malice that’s why he apologized.”

Sounds like it was an honest mistake, according to the quote in your article, Eric. I’m glad you were honest about the incident — at the very end — as well.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 3, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #228306

Eric,

From tomorrows Washington Post:
http://tinyurl.com/2993ey

“The House last night [referring to Friday night] unanimously agreed to create a special select committee, with subpoena powers, to investigate Republican allegations that Democratic leaders had stolen a victory from the House GOP on a parliamentary vote late Thursday night.”

“The agreement to form a special committee was extraordinary. Such powerful investigative committees are usually reserved for issues such as the Watergate scandal and the funneling of profits from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s.”

“I don’t know when something like this has happened before,” said House deputy historian Fred W. Beuttler. He called the decision “incredible.”

“House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) accepted GOP calls for an investigation. “I do not believe there was any wrongdoing by any member of the House. I do believe a mistake was made,” he said. “And I regret it.”

That’s what you do when there’s a problem or if a mistake is made. Agree to a full investigation and get it all out in the open. No better place to air your dirty laundry than right out in the open where all the world can see.

Posted by: KansasDem at August 4, 2007 12:37 AM
Comment #228310

This is nothing but a partisan witch hunt by the obstructionist Republicans. Their time would be better spent doing their job rather than making political theater.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 4, 2007 1:49 AM
Comment #228312

What gets me about this is how quickly one small vote, whether crooked or not, is built into the equivalent of the Republican’s culture of corruption. I get it. You don’t want to rock the boat on your side, you just want to cling onto some dim hope that you can make the Democrats look just as bad, so you can take back things in 2008.

Corruption is a problem, and If Democrats within the House and the Senate think that people like me are going to sit still for it, they’ve got another thing coming. We don’t need this, and a number of us have spoken up. This is an embarrassment. But does it justify all this hub-bub?

The Republicans are still thinking that they successfuly turned most Americans Republican, and that their current time in the wilderness is due to their parting ways with the the true orthodoxy.

In truth, Americans have come to regard Republican policies, however sincerely held, as counter to their interests. And why not? The actions of the Republicans have been to shove more and more costs and risks into the lap of the consumers, while giving them less money to spend in order to absorb them. They’ve ground the system to a stand still, and spent the better part of the time they were majority catering to the corporate bottom line from their K-Street operation.

The whole trend towards conservatism has been built on the fantasy that somehow people of the modern age can live as independently as the cowboys and pioneers of yesteryear without sacrifice, that we could adopt the attitudes of the gilded age, and not see history repeat itself.

The Republicans want to talk about procedure, after their long history of springing bills on folks without debate or a chance to read it, of votes held open into the wee hours of the night… This just seems pathetic, more self-indulgent misdirection, attempting to cover over the still rotting corpse of the GOP’s Congressional Mandate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 4, 2007 2:50 AM
Comment #228313

stephen, So what you’re saying is that we are entering a new age where liberalism can actually work. Despite the past failures and opposition to human nature, liberal policies are now viable.

Posted by: eric at August 4, 2007 3:10 AM
Comment #228323

And what about the Republicans holding the vote “open” for hours when the cutoff was 15 minutes…that’s how they managed to pass the boondoggle Medicare Part D that benefited Big Pharma…

Posted by: Rachel at August 4, 2007 7:48 AM
Comment #228326

Eric,

So the Republicans got screwed on a minor procedural vote. I’m trying to shed a tear here, but my tear ducts just aren’t working…

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 4, 2007 9:37 AM
Comment #228335
So the Republicans got screwed on a minor procedural vote.

Not just that, but the Democrats then offered a revote, which the Republicans declined. And then, the Democrats launched a full investigation.

Eric’s hypocrisy always has looked bad, but this is just weak.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #228337

So the democrats tried to get taxpayer fund’s, via this Agriculture appropriations bill, to go to illegals. Then, when they lost the votes (to the Republicans), they (first) tried to reverse the outcome, then (when that failed) they tried to make it disappear altogether. Looks like that 2006 change in “leadership” is really paying off.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 4, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #228338

Trading votes, switching votes, and brokering deals up until the time the gavel signals the end of a vote is part of the process, and it looks like the Republicans managed to outmaneuver the Democrats on this one vote—a vote which only would have required the issue to be sent back to committee. Not wanting to leave so much of a paper-trail on a measure which gives benefits to illegal aliens (something for which there is a great deal of public opposition), the Democrats immediately tried to break the rules and get a mulligan on the floor vote.

I don’t deny that the Republicans are engaged in some theatrics here—they definitely are. But it’s no different from the theatrics the Democrats have made an art-form of in THEIR constant demands for investigations. Alleging wrongdoing is a way of attracting attention to your cause while making the other side look bad, and you can’t say that the Democrats didn’t screw this one up and give the Republicans a great opportunity to turn the tables here.

The violation of the rules is only half of this. The other half is that the Republicans are using this controversy to call public attention to a policy difference on something the Democrats would prefer NOT to be scrutinized over: their effort to force American tax-payers to foot the bill for those who breaking our immigration laws.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 4, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #228339

You’re pissed about this? News flash: Gore was voted in as president, Bush stole the election, and no one in this democracy cared.

Posted by: Max at August 4, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #228344

eric-
Policies don’t work because of their politics. They work because they take an appropriate tack to a problem. Liberal and Conservative policies are equally liable to failure when they’re unrealistic. There are many elements of Republican policy that are built on a picture of how the world works that doesn’t even take into account 20th century realities of the market, much less 21st century.

It’s been trying to change America’s government by degenerating what they see as unjust restrictions on private enterprise. Unfortunately many of those restrictions were defensive mechanisms put in place in the wake of catastrophic failures of the market. Also, despite their rhetoric, they don’t put in place real alternatives to take up the slack. Result? The Republicans put themselves in a position of being the bad guys, the folks who make things worse with their actions. After Six years of the Bush administration, with every conceiveable failure of policy happening under his tenure.

Worse, they’re so use to circling the wagons to preserve political power, that they do it almost by reflex, even though it adds up to Republicans nearly constantly apologizing for and supporting crappy policy

Democrats aren’t immune. They need to start realizing that they’ll suffer more political damage by giving in than by risking Bush’s groundless accusations. Bush is the Republican’s LBJ, not the Democrats. They need to start realizing one important fact: The Republican, by following their basic impulses and politics, only make themselves more unpopular. Democrats, by doing so, will tend to make themselves more popular, so long as they don’t get carried away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 4, 2007 1:48 PM
Comment #228352

“Liberal and Conservative policies are equally liable to failure when they’re unrealistic. There are many elements of Republican policy that are built on a picture of how the world works that doesn’t even take into account 20th century realities of the market, much less 21st century.”

A very similar argument can be made of the Democratic defense of publically funded social and educational programs that relied until largely on the subordinate role of women in the labor force throughout the first half to three-quarters of the 20th century.

The jobs at the heart of the social programs that Democrats defend so diligently were referred to as “pink-collar” until very recently. Social Workers and Teachers are jobs that were/ are traditionally held by women. The Democrats who are to be comended for the work they did in reducing the gap in pay disparity between men and women failed to see or realize how much their favorite programs were being supported by this disparity and to account for the unintended side effects of their success.

As women entered the workforce on more equally footing with men during the end of the Baby Boom and throughout Generation X into the workforce, there are far fewer talented teachers and social workers willing to work for the below market pay that a publically funded salary will allow for college educated professionals. As a result, we’ve seen a shortage of social workers and teachers entering the marketplace especially in the places where they are needed most - inner cities and largely rural environments.

Rather than meet this challenge head-on and suggest a rethinking of these professions and institutions, the Democrats have become more entrenched in their defence of these professions and institutions.

The defense of these positions are very similar to the failures of the Republican is regards to the “market” and business. Republican’s have guarded these interests because they are in-line with both their core values as a party as well as in the best interest of their pocket books come campaign time when the donations come flowing in from the business people they are representing.

Democrats are similarly challenged is this regard as it comes to the role of schools and government programs. They are directly in-line with both their core values as a party and in the best interests of their pocket books come campaign time when the donations come flowing in from the unions they are representing.

Posted by: Rob at August 4, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #228356

Stephen

The market is not an interest; it is a method. We have markets in many things. They are means to allow decentralized decision making to be aggregated in a non-hierarchical networks. The government has a role in a free market economy to ensure the rule of law and set reasonable regulations, but when politicians are too enthusiastic about managing the economy, picking winners and losers and generally limited choices, they run into trouble.

Fundamentally, there are some things we cannot ask government to do because the nature of government is not up to the task. OR sometimes we cannot ask the FEDERAL government to do a task because it is too big and complex.

There is a whole industry involved in making lists of the most effective, best run, most pleasant etc countries in the world. If you look at these lists, you find an interesting thing. On the top of the lists are usually small countries, such as Finland, New Zealand, or Denmark. The U.S. is also usually near the top. This has to do very much with the scale of government. I lived in Norway. It is a great country, but much of what they do works because it is a small country. People can keep track of things and officials are relatively close to the problems they address. The U.S. makes it to the top of the list, where other big countries do not, because of its decentralized government and use of the market. Many of the things that most affect your life are based on state or local decisions. The challenges facing a place like Norway or Finland are about as complex as medium sized American state. They can employ “national” or centralized power in a way that would not work in our bigger systems and would degenerate into tyranny.

Government is a human system. We often forget that when we see the myriad of rules and laws. Human systems are not infinitely scalable. None of us can keep track of that many individuals or interests even with the help of rules, bureaucracy and computers.

What I, as a conservative, fear is the extension of Federal power into areas of the economy or society where it is inappropriate. Not every problem in our society has a government solution. Fewer still have a Federal government solution. And some problems do not have solutions at all. The government cannot repeal all misery and it cannot decree that all children will be happy and above average. If we apply the massive power of the Federal government to those sorts of problems, we just open ourselves to oppression.

Posted by: Jack at August 4, 2007 4:29 PM
Comment #228357

Max

President Bush was elected according to the rules of the electoral system that was in place before the election. It was not an ideal outcome, but we have that system in place precisely to decide the hard cases like this.

If you want to go with a nationwide national vote, you are likley to face other challenges. For example, in a close vote, you would face a nationwide recount, not just some counties in Florida. It also opens the door to more fraud, since you could load on votes in a few areas of a few states and negate honest votes all over the country.

We may want to go with some variation of these things, although I notice that the Dems are not proposing them with any vigor.

SO the rules by which GW Bush became president are still in place. I hope we do not have an election that close again. 2000 was a close election in which no candidate won a majority (it was 47.9-48.4% when all the counting was done. a difference of .05% where neither wins a majority is always going to cause trouble). That was really the core of the problem. I prefer that whoever wins get more than 50%.

So the news flash is that when no candidate wins more than half the vote and the difference is only 1/2 of a percentage point, you got trouble.

Posted by: Jack at August 4, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #228358

Unethical Congress… The Democrats have failed to live up to their PROMISE of cleaning up congress. Therefore, they should be held accountable for their failure. They broke their PROMISE to the American voters.

Furthermore, it appears to the casual political observers (most voters) that they never intended to follow through with this PROMISE. The Democrats (who had everything to gain by living up to this PROMISE) have lost credibility with the voting public and may lose the lead they just won as a result.

Posted by: Don at August 4, 2007 4:57 PM
Comment #228360

Max:
“You’re pissed about this?”

Much ado about nothing. But the GOP is swimming in such a cesspool of corruption, they’ve got to make like this is an outrage!!!
It’s not. The Dems offered a re-vote, which the Republicans declined.

“News flash: Gore was voted in as president, Bush stole the election, and no one in this democracy cared.”

Well, I certainly did (still do). And so did (do) plenty of other people.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #228361

Don, blah, blah, blah. The Democrats will be able to live up to their promises a whole lot better when there are less Republicans there to thwart all of their efforts.
But what do you righties care about people upholding their promises anyway? The president and the vice president and everyone who works for them took oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and then they proceeded to ignore every damn word of it and have been shredding it of all of it’s meaning. Since none of you Bushco apologists have given a rats ass about that, this current wailing about the Dems really comes off as completely insincere.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2007 5:30 PM
Comment #228368

Adrienne, it would seem to me that you should be wailing about the Dems doing what they said they would do in the first 100 days. Their promise as Don hints at was to be different than the Reps. That was their platform, that was their race, they won that one fair and square right? So start the wailing buddy, we’re listening.

The think the general sense of the 2006 election was “you had your chance, now move over”.

Or perhaps the problem is that 90% of encumbants were re-elected?

Posted by: Edge at August 4, 2007 7:10 PM
Comment #228372

Edge:
“Adrienne, it would seem to me that you should be wailing about the Dems doing what they said they would do in the first 100 days. Their promise as Don hints at was to be different than the Reps. That was their platform, that was their race, they won that one fair and square right? So start the wailing buddy, we’re listening.”

Well, first of all, I’m not your “buddy,” Edge. Second of all, I’m not like the average American, because I actually follow what’s going on in Congress. So, I’m not going to wail when I know damn well that the Democrats have been totally thwarted by the president and the Congressional Republicans (as well as by some Republican Lites from their own party, and Loathesome Lieberman) over the things they had promised to do. But, let’s be clear here, Democrats in the House and Senate have passed bills allowing for the funding of embryonic stem cell research, for increasing the minimum wage, for implementing 9/11 commission recommendations, and for funding the Iraq war while requiring troops to start withdrawing. As I said to Don, their greatest problem has been the fact that they didn’t get enough of a majority to override the presidential veto, nor are they getting any support for what they wished to do from the GOP. If they had gotten a greater majority, or if they had better support for their goals amongst the GOP, they would no doubt have accomplished most of their goals. When and if they do manage to get a greater majority, that will surely change.
I must say though, I find it simultaneously hilarious and ridiculous that all the righties who didn’t hold their own party to account over the many and various “Contract With America” promises would now suddenly be jumping all over the slim Democratic majority with shouts of “Broken Promises!” You all have been so noticeably silent when it comes to any sort of complaining, and so obviously accepting (indeed, defensive) of the glaring GOP corruption we’ve seen over the years, not to mention the ability to pass any sort of effective legislation, that it is incredibly hard for many of us to take this new concerned and demanding attitude of yours with a straight face.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2007 8:40 PM
Comment #228373

OK Buddy.

I voted for a Congressional Democrat after two decades of voting republican … so Buddy I don’t fit the typical American either I guess.

I guess you’d call me holding myself responsible for some trends and policy I did not agree with.

The Dems painted a much brighter 1st 100 days did they not? And they have not delivered on their promise. What they have passed lately I will agree is a good thing, especially a medium level campaign reform that I wish were more robust, but is much better than I expected.

For you to dip back in history to other promises by other politians on the right, and continue to attack the right for the past, while not holding the Dems accountable seems silly.

But relax Buddy, they still have time.

Posted by: Edge at August 4, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #228375

Adrienne, I might not be doing this right per WatchBlog posting, so I apologize.

At least give me the nod that you know who the Borg are, therefore we can at least agree on Star Trek being worth a watch eh? :)

I like your the last one, with accountability. A word I would like to see mentioned with the Democratic House & Senate more often.

If the Reps hit 100 days, Wolf Blitzer and the situation room would get their own channel for two months to report on it.


Comment #194530
Walker, good article. One simple piece at a time — that would be a really wonderful thing to see.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 10, 2006 07:46 PM

Comment #190606
These people are borg-like, and they are evil, and somehow, they must be stopped. The problem is, when you look at the state of disarray regarding the fairness and accountability of our elections, it becomes harder and harder to believe that stopping these people who have quite completely taken over our government can, or will ever be accomplished by voting.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 26, 2006 09:04 PM
Comment #194630
… Yeah, well, where there is smoke, there might well be a fire. Why are you afraid of investigations? If everything is above board, you have nothing to worry about, right? And if things have not been above board, why wouldn’t you want to know?
… Nah. It’s just garden variety checks and balances. I know it’s been awhile for your party, and you’ve forgotten what that is like, but it’s all really very necessary and important for the health and well-being of both our government and our country.
“Get ready, America. It’s payback time.”
Accountability is a bitch?
Posted by: Adrienne at November 11, 2006 02:37 PM

Posted by: Edge at August 4, 2007 9:17 PM
Comment #228376

“Much ado about nothing. But the GOP is swimming in such a cesspool of corruption, they’ve got to make like this is an outrage!!!
It’s not. The Dems offered a re-vote, which the Republicans declined.”
Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2007 05:14 PM

It’s a funny thing! When Bush or Gonzales is questioned for firing some attorneys the Democrats make a big deal of it, even when they admit on national TV that they have no evidence of it breaking any laws or bearing any illegality. However, it simply needs to be investigated in case there is some illegality somewhere.

Yet, when Democrats change a vote count of our elected representatives in their favor after the voting has been closed, and then admit that it has never happened before in recent memory, possibly ever, as KansasDem’s quote suggests:

“I don’t know when something like this has happened before,” said House deputy historian Fred W. Beuttler. He called the decision “incredible.”
Posted by: KansasDem at August 4, 2007 12:37 AM

the Dems immediately start circling the wagons as if any complaints are simply pure partisan politics. Oh well, I’ve always said Democrats are constantly allowed to have their cake and eat it too.
If the Republican Congress had done this, every newspaper in the country would have run this story for weeks about the corrupt Republicans fixing Congressional votes. Every Democrat in the House and Senate would be holding Press conferences claiming illegalities within the Republican leadership, and someone needs to lose their jobs over this. Everyone knows this is exactly what would have happened if the Democrats had lost this vote with such deceptive practices by the Republicans.

JD


Posted by: JD at August 4, 2007 10:00 PM
Comment #228378

The republican party has been wading in slime up to its chin for the last four years. You folks are desperate for any sort of bad news that does not crawl out of that foul toxic and corruptive republican swamp of deceptive practices. Well you desperate souls should enjoy this little bit of vengeance while you can. Your opportunities to revel have been few and far between of late.

It appears the dems will get the last laugh on this one. The very fact that they agreed to form an investigative committee is a kick in the shins to what was and still mostly is an unaccountable republican party. The dems quickly decided to do what the republicans have for years refused to do in the wake of adversity. An investigation may very well show foul play on the part of the dems. If that is so, then so be it. I personally applaud them for pursuing this matter in proper form. When was the last time the republicans performed anything more than a self investigation resulting in anything more than a slap on the hand? Is it possible that accountability is returning to government? It has been so long that I am no longer sure how to recognize it.

Posted by: RickIL at August 4, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #228379

JD:

You might want to reread that… the historian was saying that the decision to form the investigatory committee, which both sides unanimously agreed to, was extraordinary. Not the act which they are investigating.

Seriously, look at the facts… the democrats offered to do the vote over for the Republicans. The republicans declined that, but demanded an investigation. The democrats agreed and both parties unanimously agreed to start an investigation of a level that is normally reserved for events like Watergate and Iran-Contra. It’s a non-issue because starting an investigation like this clearly says they feel they have nothing to hide.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 4, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #228380

Is not the offer of a re-vote, that was declined immediate accountability denied. It seems a mistake was made, acknowledged, and the offer to make amends put forth. Yet the repub leaders refused this generous re-vote offer. Why would the repubs on this blog seek any additional accountability. Is it because the re-vote offer was not made known to the public by every newspaper in the country? Or at least not on the far right news stations and talk radio.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 4, 2007 10:57 PM
Comment #228382
When Bush or Gonzales is questioned for firing some attorneys the Democrats make a big deal of it

If Gonzales had cooperated with the investigation the way Democrats are cooperating in this one, then “Gonzo-gate” might not have been a big deal. After all, if Gonzales has nothing to hide he’d be more than happy to cooperate like House Democrats are doing.

Remember how you guys said Gonzales should just release the docs and expose the Democrats for the petty partisan vultures that they are? How come that didn’t happen? Why did Gonzales lie and obfuscate instead of really shoving it down the Democrat’s throats like House Democrats are doing to Republicans in this new investigation?

Posted by: American Pundit at August 4, 2007 11:09 PM
Comment #228383

A question for the conservatives, are you sure pursuing this investigation is in the best interest of this Country cost wise. With the reputation the conservative repubs have with the American people as the borrow and spend party Im sure another foolish watse of taxpayer dollars wouldnt sit to well. Perhaps the movement leadership should give this some consideration before going full bore on an investigation where the facts are already on the table.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 4, 2007 11:46 PM
Comment #228386

Edge:
“For you to dip back in history to other promises by other politians on the right, and continue to attack the right for the past, while not holding the Dems accountable seems silly.”

I really have no idea what your personal beef with me is, but it’s stupid. I guess you don’t know it, but I’m the annoyingly honest type. I always hold my party to account, and am not known around here for being a mindless partisan cheerleader when they don’t show the kind of integrity and spine I expect of them (perhaps foolishly).
For instance, at the moment I’ve got a huge problem with the fact that they just caved on Bush’s new ‘n’ expanded (yet totally illegal) wiretapping powers — seemingly just because they were desperate to go off on their vacations.
I’m really very angry with the fact that the Democratic majority still hasn’t quite grasped the fact that they need no longer act like they’re in the minority. And if acting like they’re the majority means their vacations should somehow become delayed, well, then their bloody vacations SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY be delayed.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment #228387

JD:
“It’s a funny thing! When Bush or Gonzales is questioned for firing some attorneys the Democrats make a big deal of it, even when they admit on national TV that they have no evidence of it breaking any laws or bearing any illegality.”

What’s really funny, or should I say, really strange, is that this hasn’t actually happened in reality…
So, you’re just making stuff up.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2007 1:15 AM
Comment #228391
at the moment I’ve got a huge problem with the fact that they just caved on Bush’s new ‘n’ expanded (yet totally illegal) wiretapping powers — seemingly just because they were desperate to go off on their vacations.

If you’re going to be fair, Adrienne, then you know they didn’t do it just to go on vacation. They were afraid that another terrorist attack might happen and Republicans might blame them for it. It was still the wrong thing to do, but not for the reason you state.

In any case, the House still hasn’t approved the bill and the Senate’s version is only good for six months to give them time to come up with a better version. It is important to spy on terrorists, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t violate the rights of law-abiding citizens. That’s a problem that won’t be solved over a weekend.

Oh, and how about that Boehner guy leaking classified intelligence. Traitor!

But I suppose Bush will pardon Boehner just like he did with that other traitor, Libby.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 5, 2007 2:24 AM
Comment #228393

Did anyone besides me have an incredible urge to be able to slap that obnoxious sneer off of Bush’s face during his fizzing comments and demands?!?!?!?
Knickers must have been in a real bunch…….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at August 5, 2007 3:07 AM
Comment #228397

The Democrats are giving a LOT more ground on this vote then the Republicans ever gave in 2000…

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 5, 2007 7:46 AM
Comment #228398
McNulty, still in the chair, had to explain to Minority Leader Boehner (R-Ohio), during the parliamentary procedure that followed, that “the machine is down” — the machine that tells members what they are voting on and how they’ve voted. This drew groans, of course, since it was not hard to infer that it had been turned off after the crooked vote.

So the GOP believes that an apparent machine malfunction was intentional? Whoa, irony overload!

Maybe they can use a good old-fashioned paper ballot. Seems to solve a lot of these problems.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 5, 2007 7:51 AM
Comment #228401

Rob-
What’s happened is that salaries have not been updated to keep with the times, much less with the added expenses of NCLB. How do we expect people to afford the masters degrees and certifications and everything on those salaries. We’re pricing ourselves out of the market for most teachers, besides those who can absorb repaying loans of that magnitude.

I don’t think it has anything to do with gender, or pink-collar workers that just made the insistence on cutting corners there palatable for a bit longer. What really’s going on here is that people are trying to run a government conservative style, by trying to keep costs down, when what’s needed with these programs is for people to sit down and actually work out what’s going on and how to respond to it.

Conservatives, of course, don’t want to figure out how to make the government work. That’s why Conservatives have thoroughly screwed up in the eyes of the people.

Let me make it clear: I don’t think the old style liberalism is viable either. It was born of a much more deterministic mindset, as was conservatism. The Democrats need to figure out how to handle the costs of what they’re putting forward responsibly, to make liberalism cost effective.

Jack-
The market is not a method, it’s a statistic. Understanding the situation behind the statistic is more important than trying to react to it, or passively letting those numbers shape decision making.

We cannot be afraid to provoke a temporary downturn in the market, or the bottom lines of an industry, in order to ensure the future wellbeing of the economy and the country. The habits people and business get into, even when they work for the time being, can be self-destructive in the long-run, and if we make preserving profit a priority, we might not take care of a problem in time. There are winners and losers, economically speaking, with every decision. It is not at all a true free market sensibility to shape law such that the businesses concerned come out winners.

Moreover, a market-based decision might have consequences that do not serve other interests of the people. The privatization of the army’s logistics, though profitable for some, has been a disaster for our Army, since most of the people running the logistics are not trained soldiers, capable of defending themselves should they be ambushed. That required us to either escort them, or have them escorted by mercenaries, whose actions can often reflect badly on us, or provoke incidents that complicate our missions there.

But of course, we must let the market rule, right? Well the market is one factor, and in a way, not even the most important, because it emerges from so many other factors.

Don-
Were you this quick to respond when the Republicans began breaking rules, and hold up votes? We’ve bent over backwards trying to accomodate you people, and you spring on small procedural problems and call us your equivalents. When are you going to stop justifying your party’s behavior?

JD-
They have mounted an investigation. I wonder, would we have gotten even the time of day if we asked that from your people? I think not. I don’t want my people engaging in dishonest behavior to win these kinds of battles. But I also don’t want to hear all this highflown rhetoric from the Right about ethics and rules, given what I know of their history.

I don’t want to hear it about media bias. The Republicans maintained a level of corruption and collaboration with industry lobbyists that even the worse of the former Democratic majority would be hard-pressed to match. They routinesly bent the rules and prolonged votes until they got what they wanted. The Medicare Part D bill was one of those votes. Where’s your outrage at that, or is it the partisan implications and not the general principle that attracts your disgust? And yet the media hardly touched this during the last six years, only picking it up when they were getting routinely scooped by online competition.

The Republicans were absolutely spoiled by the media. I remember hearing near constant reports of Democrats and Republicans under investigation during the Democratic majority. The Republicans, though, coasted along with much less press coverage of their misdeeds, in no small part due to their take-no-prisoners press approach, and their constant willingness to scream bloody murder about bias whenever confronted about this way or that.

In the end, the Democrats lasted multiple decades without throwing around talk of media bias, and the Republicans lasted a mere twelve years with it. I don’t think its unconnected, I think the price for Republicans of their party’s discounted ride from the media has been their party’s ability to look at itself and reform. If all the negative news you hear gets labeled as bias, how are you then motivated to deal with that, or the overall problem? You’re not. You’ll get lax, you’ll excuse stuff you shouldn’t, and by the time you can all agree that things have gotten too ugly to support, you’ll have a catastrophic political collapse on your hands.

I would rather Democrats suffer a number of setbacks and scandals that they learn from, than to see our coverage pure as the driven snow while letting all kind of nastiness fester. There should be an investigation, and it should be thorough, and if it implicates Democrats, so be it. It’s a lesson that needs to be learned.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2007 10:01 AM
Comment #228404

Adrienne, honest comment thanks. No beef, I thought I’d get at least a smirk out of you on the Borg comment.

Within this post, I was pointing out what I saw as a lack of recognition that the Dems have not been able to deliver on all they promosed. You corrected and said there have been successes, I felt compelled to think of the past and the discussions this site had in October-November accross all three columns.

I am not happy with the Dems myself, because wanted more effort on the war, I am dissapointed in the hallow votes that they claim are heading the American public in the right direction. Not with me it ain’t.

I don’t consider you annoying, I have always felt you like to debate. Again, no beef. I sense you will not be asimilated! ;)

Posted by: Edge at August 5, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #228410

Edge,

The House Democrats did what they promised to do in the first 100 hours (barring some quibbling about how you count 100 hours). They can’t stop Bush from vetoing bills. They can’t stop the Republicans from filibustering bills in the Senate. In the Senate, they don’t even have a majority without Joe Lieberman. I know it annoys people when I point these things out, but facts are facts.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 5, 2007 12:10 PM
Comment #228413
We cannot be afraid to provoke a temporary downturn in the market, or the bottom lines of an industry, in order to ensure the future wellbeing of the economy and the country.

Excellent point, Stephen. It echoes what President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary wrote about why America experienced the greatest economic expansion in the country’s history under his tenure:

“The decision the President made in this process marked a dramatic change in fiscal policy. The opponents of that change - especially supply-side advocates who vehemently objected to including tax increases in our deficit reduction program - predicted that our program would lead to increased unemployment, higher deficits, and economic stagnation, recession, or worse. Republican Representative Dick Armey of Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the plan would be “a disaster for the performance of the economy” and warned that “no deficit reduction, no good can come of it.” His colleague from Texas, Republican Senator Phil Gramm, called it “a one way ticket to a recession.”

Instead, the country had the longest period of growth in it’s history, massive new private-sector job creation, low inflation, higher incomes across all income groups, increased investment and productivity growth, and lower deficits, eventually followed by surpluses.

That has been a great and enduring frustration to supply-side advocates, who first predicted that our policies would cause great economic injury and then, when the opposite happened, argued that sound fiscal policy had nothing to do with economic conditions they had predicted would not occur.”

Posted by: American Pundit at August 5, 2007 12:22 PM
Comment #228422

Stephen D -
“When are you going to stop justifying your party’s behavior?”

Good question back at you.
If you read my post you will see no justification of “my” party (which one is that, by the way, since I don’t belong to a party?) I was merely pointing out the FACT that the Democrats have not lived up to a VERY FIRM PROMISE they made during the campaigns last year. If they KNEW they couldn’t live up to the promise, they shouldn’t have LIED. If they CAN’T live up to that promise, it says EVEN MORE about their ability as leaders. (Does this sound like justifying some other party? It doesn’t to me.)

Whine and moan and complain about the Republicans all you want, but its only because you can’t bear to deal with the problems in YOUR own party. They have failed to follow through on a promise that may have been the key to winning the last election.

American Pundit -
“But I suppose Bush will pardon Boehner just like he did with that other traitor, Libby.”

I don’t know if you have done any reading in the last 100 days…but Bush didn’t PARDON Libby. Secondly, Libby was never convicted of being a traitor (nor was he ever accused of being a traitor). Your statement is less than opinion, and has no basis in fact (its more like gossip, cooler talk, etc.) You are welcome to any opinion you are capable of forming, but my guess is that this doesn’t qualify.

Posted by: Don at August 5, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #228426

Exactly what “VERY FIRM PROMISE” did they break? Did they promise to let the GOP minority decide when the vote-switching games are over?

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 5, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #228427

Woody -
Where have you been? The Democrat-led congress campaigned, won the election and then was sworn in since you likely last checked the news. Their promise was not about what the GOP would do, but about what the Dems would do. THEY haven’t lived up to THEIR promise about THEMSELVES. Stop blaming the GOP. This is 100% about the PROMISE the Dems made about what the Dems would do.

No one forced them to promise to end corruption. No one forced them to agree to clean up congressional activities. No one is stopping them from doing what they promised. It has been on their shoulders to follow-through with their own promise…AND THEY HAVEN’T.

Posted by: Don at August 5, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #228437

Don,

I don’t recall them promising to end all corruption in Congress. Since that would require policing the behavior of over 500 people, that would be a big promise indeed!

They did pass a substantial ethics and lobbying reform bill which awaits Bush’s signature. Is it enough? Probably not. But it counts as follow-through.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 5, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #228439

Woody, these links cld hlp you remember and he is paragraph from link:

http://www.democrats.gov/news/011806.html

“There’s a price to pay for this corruption in Washington, and we can see it in the state of our union,” said Leader Reid. “From seniors who cannot afford their prescription drugs to soldiers sent to war without body armor and middle-class families living on a financial cliff, the cost of corruption is very real. Today, I challenge President Bush - the head of the Republican Party - to match our commitment to honest leadership. When leaders are accountable to people, not lobbyists, there is no limit to how far America can go.”

Posted by: Tenedor at August 5, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #228443

Don, you are right, the Democrats have not lived up to their promise. But, this bill sent to Bush is, as Woody, said, follow through, and a down payment, one can only hope, on a much larger purchase of ethical and responsible representation of the people, to come.

One does not kill the child who takes their first step and then falls, for having failed to walk the length of the room on their first try. This bill is far better than no steps forward at all. Let’s take what is given, and demand better after it is law, if Bush signs the bill. If Bush doesn’t, well, the impedence of progress belongs to the Republicans, not the Democrats.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 5, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #228459

“I don’t want to hear it about media bias. The Republicans were absolutely spoiled by the media.
In the end, the Democrats lasted multiple decades without “throwing around talk of media bias”, and the Republicans lasted a mere twelve years with it.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2007 10:01 AM

If you haven’t looked lately, I would suggest you take a peek at the confidence numbers the American Public has toward the mainstream network news outlets. Their numbers are in the teens, edged out by the Democratic Congress for cellar-dwellers.

Oh, and the next time you try that line about Democrats not complaining about media bias, perhaps, I’ll be watching a Democratic debate on FOX News Channel! Hmm?

JD

Posted by: JD at August 5, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #228460

What’s really funny, or should I say, really strange, is that this hasn’t actually happened in reality…
So, you’re just making stuff up.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2007 01:15 AM

When Tim Russert interviewed Chuck Schumer about the attorney firings he admitted he had no proof of illegality. He answered, “That’s why we need investigations.” He also admitted that he was not sure whether any of it would amount to any criminal wrongdoing.
The left wing bloggers out there are livid with Tim Russert right now for actually daring to question the ethics of those Democrats posing as Ethics Committee Chairpersons. Read a few far left blogs out there.
Now that Democrats have regained power they are actually being forced to answer for their own actions every once in a while. I don’t think they expected this based upon their kid glove treatment for the last 40 years. It’s rather funny to watch the Democratic meltdown!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 5, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #228467

If a baby is heading towards a cliff you do run and grab it, not let it fall.

Again, as stated before given what the Dems ran on in 2006, they are not delivering, and not within the timeline.

“Its the Reps/Bush’s Fault?” I don’t understand your statement here when the platform the Dems ran on was to “make” things happen with or without Bush. I do not remmeber many media outlets, candidates, or this Blog making qualifying statments that things would change ONLY if Bush went along with the change.

They all did the opposite, they clearly stated that the nation’s direction needed to change, and the Dems would make it happen despite Bush.

Posted by: Edge at August 5, 2007 9:29 PM
Comment #228469

Woody Mena -
“I don’t recall them promising to end all corruption in Congress. Since that would require policing the behavior of over 500 people, that would be a big promise indeed!”

Yes, it was a big promise indeed! I remember it well.

The Democrats promised that they would eliminate corruption by policing their own members. But they haven’t. Quite the opposite, they have tried to promote some of their corrupted members to honored and influential positions. So they haven’t policed their own Democrat members.

Nor have they done much to change rules or proceedures to eliminate the opportunities for corruption. The bill Remer speaks about hardly accomplishes anything to stop corruptive activity (I doubt that anyone has ever been corrupted by eating dinner, taking a flight, or getting tickets to an event provided by a special interest lobbyist). The bill is way too little and quite late. [It qualifies for “token gesture” status.]

During the campaign it was headline stuff, now it is nearly back page. (If I were a Dem I would be angry at my party leaders for their lack of real leadership on this issue.)

Posted by: Don at August 5, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #228471

JD:
“When Tim Russert interviewed Chuck Schumer about the attorney firings he admitted he had no proof of illegality. He answered, “That’s why we need investigations.” He also admitted that he was not sure whether any of it would amount to any criminal wrongdoing.”

You’re just flat out lying here, JD. The last time Schumer was on Meet the Press was back on March 18th, and while Schumer did talk with Russert about this particular issue, he didn’t say what you’re claiming he said. Additionally, we all know a hell of a lot more about the illegality of these firings right now, than we did months ago.

No wonder so many of you righties never provide a link to back up what you say. It’s because you’re so frequently just making stuff up! For some strange reason, you seem to never expect us to want to verify it’s truthfulness (or lack thereof).

Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2007 10:03 PM
Comment #228474

Am I missing something here? The righties are acting like the dems have full control of congress, the senate, everything and all the repubs packed up and left town. IMHO the major reason the public opinion of Congress is lower than Bush is three fold. 1. The repub lead 109th Congress has stained congress in the eyes of the American people for years to come with their corruption and stupidity. 2. A large portion of the 109th still remains in Congress, the leadership changed to the dems who obviously need time to work. Afterall how long has it been 7 months? and 3. The dem leadership is still gunshy and unsure of themselves. Especially when it involves issues that have been subjected to years of far right propaganda. I say to the righties have the same amount of patience and understanding, that you have shown so well to the repub leadership, with the dems. Institutionalized corruption didnt happen in a day and wont be cured in a day.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2007 11:52 PM
Comment #228477

J2-
“Institutionalized corruption didnt happen in a day and wont be cured in a day.”

Then the Dems were FOOLS to promise that they would. If this is the speed at which these “gunshy” Dems attempt to promote one of their top priorities of last year’s campaign we should expect some measurable results by…when?…the year 2040? (BTW the Dems, by your reasoning above, must be responsible for most of the institutionalized corruption anyway since they were in charge for so many years.)

They have failed to deliver on their promise. They had months to plan their strategy for changing the corruption (last year when they made it one of their key campaign promises) and they have had months since the election to do something substantive to live up to the promise they made. It is obvious to even the casual observer that they failed to develop any workable strategies BEFORE they made the promise. They didn’t sufficiently prepare. They haven’t sufficiently acted. They have failed. You, for one, should be eager to hold them accountable for their lack of action rather than excusing their lack of leadership.

Posted by: Don at August 6, 2007 1:45 AM
Comment #228478

Don, Are you saying the dems were fools for promising to stop corruption in one day or the repubs were fools to believe they would actually be able to do such?
Besides with the ethics package just passed are they not on their way to doing everthing then can to live up to the exaggerated expectations of the repubs?
Even this petty excuse for whining by the repubs shows the progress made in ethics, do you think the repub leadership would have volunteered a re-vote? Yet still its whine whine whine by the repubs about ethics, of all things, after years of silence when it was the repubs leading the way, how pathetic is that.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 6, 2007 2:41 AM
Comment #228554

Why should anyone be surprised that Democratic Leaders would try to change votes after the close of an election? Al Gore and the Democrats have had a six year history of trying to do just that since 2000!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 6, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #228565

You’re just flat out lying here, JD. The last time Schumer was on Meet the Press was back on March 18th, and while Schumer did talk with Russert about this particular issue, he didn’t say what you’re claiming he said. Additionally, we all know a hell of a lot more about the illegality of these firings right now, than we did months ago.
No wonder so many of you righties never provide a link to back up what you say. It’s because you’re so frequently just making stuff up! For some strange reason, you seem to never expect us to want to verify it’s truthfulness (or lack thereof).
Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2007 10:03 PM


“Meet the Press” with Tim Russert:

SEN. SCHUMER:
“So, yes, there is evidence there in the U.S. attorney’s mind.
But, Tim, we don’t have proof yet, conclusive, beyond-a-reasonable- doubt proof,” that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, Schumer conceded, “That’s why we have to go forward with the investigation.”

MR. RUSSERT: But if you cannot prove that, in fact, a criminal investigation was interfered with, then this is all just political complaint, and nothing happens.

SEN. SCHUMER: Oh, no. Tim, this is very serious stuff. Now, whether it reaches the level of criminality is one thing, but the U.S. attorneys are the chief law enforcement officer for federal law in each of their districts. At the head of the Justice Building, on top of each Justice Building, when you walk in, is that eagle with the arrows clutched in her claws, and that symbolizes law without fear or favor.
(Chuck Schumer in an interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” March 2007)

Ah, Mr. Schumer, so the proof is in the attorney’s minds that were fired. And we need contempt of Congress citations issued for such overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing! Geez!!!


“FOX News Sunday” with Mike Wallace:

WALLACE: Meanwhile, this week a House committee held two White House aides in contempt, and a Senate committee issued a subpoena for Karl Rove to testify, all in the investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Senator, so far, Congress has been investigating this issue all year. You’ve heard from 14 witnesses. You’ve received 8,500 pages of documents.
Can you point to a single smoking gun, any hard evidence, that the White House has done anything illegal?

FEINGOLD: I think clearly with regard to the NSA surveillance program that we’ve been talking about…

WALLACE: No, no, I’m talking about the U.S. attorneys, sir.

FEINGOLD: Well, I believe they probably have. I can’t give you anything definitive on that, but I do believe there’s been terrible misconduct and misleading approaches here.

WALLACE: But you know, I think the question is, is this really going anywhere? Is this substantive oversight or is this political theater?
I mean, the point is on the U.S. attorneys which we’re talking about, six-month, seven-month investigation, 8,500 pages of documents, 14 witnesses, and you say yourself as a member of Senate Judiciary you haven’t found any hard evidence that the White House has broken the law.

FEINGOLD: Well, I happen to think they probably did break the law here, but I don’t think the investigation is over, and…

WALLACE: But do you have any evidence of that?

FEINGOLD: … until we — well, that’s why we’re asking for people like Karl Rove and others to come down and testify so we can actually examine the evidence.
(Russ Feingold with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, July 29, 2007)


The next time you call someone a liar Adrienne, you should make sure you have your facts straight!
Not only did Schumer admit to Russert that they really had nothing, but so did Russ Feingold to Mike Wallace, as the above quotes prove.

No wonder you lefties can keep calling Bush a liar and war criminal with no proof. Be careful Adrienne, the Democratic Leadership is rubbing off on you!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 6, 2007 9:58 PM
Comment #228574

j2 -
“Don, Are you saying the dems were fools for promising to stop corruption in one day or the repubs were fools to believe they would actually be able to do such?”

I’d guess that beer and creative thinking didn’t mix well.

The Dems didn’t think they had to live up to their promise or they didn’t know they couldn’t. That’s the issue.

Posted by: Don at August 6, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #228583

JD fades back, shoots the three, and scores!

Posted by: Honest at August 7, 2007 12:45 AM
Comment #228584

Just being honest, Honest!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 7, 2007 12:53 AM
Comment #228585

Ah, such carefully selected quotes there, JD, but in fact, you were lying. Because in that interview, Schumer talked about the staggering amount of evidence they already had back then, and about how Kyle Sampson’s testimony had already directly conflicted with lies that Gonzales had told about not knowing anything about the firings, and about how clearly dishonest the deputy attorney general’s comments had been regarding the supposed poor performance reasons for the firings (when he knew nothing about the truly excellent performance ratings they had received), and so on, and so forth.

As I said previously, that interview took place months and months ago. We now know even more about how dishonest they’ve been. We also have seen that the president has now ordered people not to testify, even though that means they end up being held in contempt of Congress. Indeed, the criminality of the entire situation is now so glaringly apparent that is exactly why you tried to act as though Schumer had just appeared on Meet the Press, when he hadn’t.

The sad truth is, everyone now knows that the Justice Dept was transformed into a political arm of the White House. This is why there is not one Republican politician in Congress left who is actually willing to try defend Gonzales at all. Yet strangely, a few of you Bushie Loyalists who never bother to keep up with the facts, and who just can’t bear to face them anyway, are still lamely trying to claim that this is just a partisan witchhunt based on nothing at all. But you’re not fooling anyone but yourselves.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect to this whole thing is that it was Republican attorneys whose names and professional reputations were dragged through the mud by the lying Attorney General, and his “Loyal Bushies,” and the lying president and his lying henchmen — for no good reason. And none of you people seem to care at all about that fact.

Such blind and mindless loyalty to your totalitarian overlords is truly pathetic.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 12:55 AM
Comment #228589

Sorry, Adrienne.
Are direct quotes out of the (donkeys’) mouths not good enough for you?

Furthermore, the interview with Feingold and Chris Wallace was July 29, 2007. That was last week, Adrienne! And they have nothing more illegal today than they had back in March when Schumer made a fool of himself with Tim Russert.

If I give quotes straight from the donkeys’ mouths, and yet the donkeys’ constituents still do not believe, who is being blind, mindless, and truly pathetic?

JD

Posted by: JD at August 7, 2007 1:09 AM
Comment #228595

“Furthermore, the interview with Feingold and Chris Wallace was July 29, 2007. That was last week, Adrienne!”

Does a murder trial declare the suspect not guilty just because witnesses who were called to testify fail to show up for court? No JD, that’s not how it works.
So, when Feingold says:
“I don’t think the investigation is over”
and:
“that’s why we’re asking for people like Karl Rove and others to come down and testify so we can actually examine the evidence.”
It means they haven’t gathered every fact they wish to gather. Get it?

I sense the real trouble all the Loyal Bushies are having is that they want this scandal to go away just because Bushco is trying to stonewall.
But it won’t.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 2:35 AM
Comment #228657

Hey JD, look what Representative Cohen (Tennessee) is up to:
He’s “working with former Reagan Justice Department lawyer Bruce Fein to draw up articles of impeachment against Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales.”

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #228665

“Does a murder trial declare the suspect not guilty just because witnesses who were called to testify fail to show up for court? No JD, that’s not how it works.
So, when Feingold says:
“I don’t think the investigation is over”
and:
“that’s why we’re asking for people like Karl Rove and others to come down and testify so we can actually examine the evidence.”
It means they haven’t gathered every fact they wish to gather. Get it?”
Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 02:35 AM

Read below the article you referenced in your post above Adrienne, coupled with the quotes I gave you from the two Democrats that are running the investigations who claim they still have nothing, and you will find that with Democrats in charge, the accused is deemed guilty without ever having any evidence at all to convict.
Schumer and Leahy have admitted on National TV News that they have nothing as yet. And already impeachment charges are forthcoming for Vice President Cheney and Alberto Gonzales, and censure against both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Obviously, you are more than happy with this “Democratic Proclamation of guilt without sufficient evidence” way of doing things when it comes to the Democrats. Here are quotes from your referenced article below…

“WASHINGTON — Before returning to Memphis on Sunday after a marathon weekend House session, U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., signed on as a co-sponsor of bills to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney and to censure both Cheney and President Bush.”

“The impeachment resolution was introduced by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, in April and has 18 co-sponsors, including the four it picked up in the last week.”

“The eight-page censure resolution had 20 sponsors when it was introduced on Saturday by U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. It contains six reasons for the action, including that the president and vice president “overstated the nature and urgency of the threat posed by” Saddam Hussein’s alleged nuclear weapons program, alleged weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network. It also seeks to censure them for inadequate planning of the war, for straining the military to the point of undermining national security and for misleading the public about progress against Iraqi insurgents.”

So, Adrienne, the impeachment resolution against Cheney by Kucinich was presented in April with 14, or I mean 18, (just recently) co-sponsors. Is that out of four hundred thirty some odd Representatives, Adrienne?
Oh, well, maybe you are so excited over the 18 co-sponsors because that is more than the number of people that support Kucinich’s candidacy for President?

Even censure is not going far apparently, with only 20 sponsors! Your side must be getting pretty desperate to please the far left now. Oh, well, keep hoping Adrienne.

JD

Posted by: JD at August 7, 2007 7:14 PM
Comment #228674

Oh I know Cheney isn’t going to be impeached, JD. And neither is the president. The Blue Dog Democrats are too chickensh*t to do that, even though there are plenty of high crimes and misdemeanors they could choose from if they had the guts to do it.
No, my point in putting up that link was about Gonzales and his impeachment, and I think it just might happen. As I mentioned before, not a single Republican is willing to defend his lying ass at this point. Republicans on the committee during his hearing have let him know in no uncertain terms that they know he’s a liar. Indeed, even the most conservative Republican on the Judiciary Committee asked already asked Gonzales to resign.
And guess what JD? Congress doesn’t need definitive proof that a crime has occurred in order to impeach him.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 8:34 PM
Comment #228680

“And guess what JD? Congress doesn’t need definitive proof that a crime has occurred in order to impeach him.”
Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 08:34 PM

That is the whole point of the Democratic smear campaign now isn’t it, Adrienne? You really are getting wise to the way the Democratic Congress runs things. My congratulations for finally understanding and admitting that you condone such behavior with no accountability in actually having proof of any wrongdoing.
Most people would call those kind of motives pure hate!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 7, 2007 9:19 PM
Comment #228691

“Most people would call those kind of motives pure hate!”

Bwwwahahahaheheheheh!…uhehehehehuhuhummm……

Sure, it couldn’t have anything at all to do with Gonzales’ lying, or the firing of attorneys with excellent ratings for purely political reasons with the lame excuse that they weren’t performing well, or with that fact that Gonzales and the administration has made a mockery of the whole concept of what the Justice Dept. is supposed to do. No, it’s just pure, unreasoning hatred.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 10:59 PM
Comment #228714

Adrienne,
The claim that the Ashcroft and Gonzales Justice Departments are politically motivated is just bunk. Both of them have gone after just as many Republicans as Democrats in the last six years. Who do you think prosecuted and appointed prosecutors for the Abramoff case?
These Justice Departments have been a lot less politically motivated in comparison to the Reno Justice Department of the Clinton years. She wouldn’t investigate any of the campaign law-breaking of the Clinton/Gore Administration, and wouldn’t have even investigated Paula Jones’ claims of Clinton’s sexual deviance and harrassment of co-workers, (that turned out to be true by the way on several counts), if she hadn’t been forced to do so. Democrats demanding the impeachment of Gonzales for something in which they have found no illegality, while Reno in the 90’s let all kinds of campaign corruption and illegal access to classified documents take place is hypocritical and embarrassing. Also, her handling of Waco and the Elian Gonzales affair was just disgusting. Yet, how did the Democrats thank her? They helped her run a State campaign in Florida. By the actions of the Democrats, you would think that Gonzales had just set “fire” to a compound with a bunch of children in it. But, no, according to Democrats, that is perfectly acceptable, just don’t “fire” any U.S. Attorneys!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 8, 2007 1:29 AM
Comment #228724

JD, the total politicization of the Justice Dept. under Gonzales is now self evident. What his aides did toward that end is also equally self evident — indeed they have admitted that this was the case. There is nothing more to be said. He should step down, but if he doesn’t, it now seems pretty likely that he could end up being impeached.
The reason is very simple and straightforward: America can’t have an Attorney General that does nothing but lie his ass off to Congress and the American people, and be allowed to turn the Justice Dept. into a political arm for the White House.

In regards to the rest of your post, I’m certainly not going to indulge you in your “waaah, what Clinton did!” direction, so just forget it. Not only because it’s like a broken record, and not only because what the Bush administration has done is far, far worse, but because I’m really just SO freaking sick and tired of hearing it after all these years.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2007 2:26 AM
Comment #228808

It is hilarious that you speak of how Republicans have politicized the Justice Department. Democratic Leaders claim the Attorney General fired some attorneys for not prosecuting the law a certain way, then in the next breath they threaten to refuse to hear any more Supreme Court or Federal judge nominations from G.W. Bush for the rest of his term in office.
So, you claim the Bush Administration has politicized the Justice Department over which he presides. Well, what about the Democrats politicizing the entire Judicial Branch of the Federal Government by threatening to refuse to hear any new judicial nominations with even moderately conservative ideological views, over which they are not supposed to have control based upon the separation of powers of the three branches of government?
The Dems have been practicing the politicization of Justice for decades. Thus, as I said, having their cake and eating it too, that is, until recently.
Your side is angry simply because now, every once in a while, by a few guys like Russert and Wallace, they actually get called on it, rather than have the interviewer just nod his head in agreement like a bobble-head doll!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 8, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #228825

JD-
We claimed they were fired because they didn’t back a political line for their party. Is that a big deal? Well, if you don’t like the idea of some Democrat using this kind of encouragement to get Republicans thrown in jail on weak cases, maybe you should feel this is important. This one guy got on the list essentially because he didn’t pursue prosecutions on folks whose only problem was botched records, shared names and other innocent explanations.

What he did has never really been done. He was selective where nearly every other president, Republicans included, kept their hands off.

We have hard evidence, testimony from former officials, your fellow Republicans. You have? Well you have the notion that whatever Democrats say Republicans have done wrong, Democrats supposedly have done so as well.

I tell you what: if we were really trying to politicize the judicial branch, few of your judges would have ever seen the light of day. We could have filibustered your choices for most of the six years of the Bush Presidency. Instead, look at the Supreme Court for crying out loud. Does it look like we put up much of a fight against those two Bush appointees? We okayed hundreds of Bush adminstration judges where your side blocked hundreds of Clintons. You folks got all bent out of shape over just a handful, demanding up and down votes. You threatened the nuclear option of writing away the Senate Rules that allow filibusters over this.

Democrats have played their share of politics on this issue, but they have never taken it too this dysfunctional of an extent. I don’t recall the last time Democrat administrations went scrounging around a fourth tier law school like Regent University for doctrinaire religious conservatives, nor when they last put inexperienced Tyros like that Monica Goodman in Charge of huge divisions of the justice department. Your party has sought out political power at the expense of working government, and partisan hacks at the expense of the kind of people who can put together good policy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2007 1:40 AM
Comment #228904

“I tell you what: if we were really trying to politicize the judicial branch, few of your judges would have ever seen the light of day. We could have filibustered your choices for most of the six years of the Bush Presidency. Instead, look at the Supreme Court for crying out loud. Does it look like we put up much of a fight against those two Bush appointees? We okayed hundreds of Bush adminstration judges where your side blocked hundreds of Clintons. You folks got all bent out of shape over just a handful, demanding up and down votes. You threatened the nuclear option of writing away the Senate Rules that allow filibusters over this.
Democrats have played their share of politics on this issue, but they have never taken it too this dysfunctional of an extent. I don’t recall the last time Democrat administrations went scrounging around a fourth tier law school like Regent University for doctrinaire religious conservatives, nor when they last put inexperienced Tyros like that Monica Goodman in Charge of huge divisions of the justice department. Your party has sought out political power at the expense of working government, and partisan hacks at the expense of the kind of people who can put together good policy.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2007 01:40 AM

Stephen, did you not read the quotes above from the Democrats who are running the investigations? Obviously, it is not that I don’t believe the Democrats, but rather that I believe the Democrats when they say that they have NOHARD EVIDENCE OF THE aTTORNEY GENERAL DOING ANYTHING WRONG. And they said it on National TV, twice.

But, regarding Bush’s appointments, maybe it is just this kind of rhetoric used by the left about Bush’s appointees that Justice Lefkow in Illinois criticized after she found her parents murdered in their basement. By the way, there has been continually increasing numbers of death threats and attacks upon judges in the last five years. I wonder why?
Perhaps, you would like to read Justice Lefkow’s first public comments after laying her parents to rest. Comments that apparently Senator Patrick Leahy agreed with, at least in word! But, Sen. Patrick Leahy’s word has never meant that much, since Democrats still plan to obstruct nominees and ridicule and demean Bush’s appointees. Anyway, here is what Justice Lefkow said below, and Leahy’s response.

“Lefkow, in her first public statements after the murders, begged Congress to turn sympathy for her into real protection for judges and their families. She also asked the lawmakers to repudiate political attacks on judiciary.”
“Fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge, or the fringe, to exact revenge on a judge who ruled against them,” she said.
Bart Ross, 57, confessed to killing Lefkow’s family in a note before fatally shooting himself last March.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who has proposed court security legislation in the Senate, agreed.
“The rhetoric can only stir the pot, and it must stop,” Leahy said in a statement. “It is irresponsible.”

Perhaps, you would also like to know that 99% of Bush’s appointees have received a qualified to highly qualified rating for appointment.

JD

Posted by: JD at August 9, 2007 11:33 PM
Comment #229596

Eric,

Considering the shenanigans the republicans have been pulling for years now, there is no room for this accusation.

There’s a log-jam in your eye, Eric.

Posted by: RGF at August 16, 2007 2:49 AM
Post a comment