"The administration has been pushing the envelope, and Congress hasn't been doing proper oversight," Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said yesterday. "I think some members are going to start to step up to the plate and do more . . . . The executive branch has lost a sense of balance and proportion, and they're just grabbing at everything. And if we were doing more oversight, we might have handled this in a different way."*
So, it must be an election year. And Shays must be feeling the heat, since for the past 2 years he's been enabling the Bush administration to systematically trump science, the constitution, laws and democracy in favor of political pandering to a neo-evangelical cabal powered by oil companies. But what is he really doing? Well let's roll back the video tape to May 16th where the New York Times raises the flag on the obstruction of the Republicans in Congress over files related to the Duke Cunningham investigation:
The United States attorney's office in San Diego has asked for copies of "tens of thousands" of documents from the House Appropriations and Intelligence Committees, the official said, as part of its inquiry into whether Mr. Cunningham illegally influenced the process the committees use to designate money for military projects.
But lawyers for the Republican-controlled House rebuffed the request as unreasonably broad, the official said, and asked the United States attorney's office for a shorter list.
Shays of course would prefer if the Justice Department didn't investigate the Republicans in congress since it might further reveal the corruption that this rubber stamp congress has been up to. According to CNN:
Former Abramoff partner testifies on ties to GOP lawmakers
'We were trying to rig the rules,' says ex-aide to Rep. Bob Ney
. . .
The aide, Neil Volz, who was a partner of Abramoff's at the time, also outlined how the Abramoff team received assistance from several Republican congressmen including, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, and Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio.
*The Washington Post, Raid Was Tipping Point For an Angry Congress
Simmering Frustration With Bush Erupts, By Peter Baker and Zachary A. Goldfarb, Sunday, May 28, 2006
14 comments:
Turfgrrl
You're backing into a porcupine here. The president has veto power; he would be neglecting the proper constitutional powers assigned to him if he simply rubber stamped legislation. What are the equivalent figures for, say, the Clinton or Carter administrations? And how’bout them Reid boxing tickets, not to mention Reid’s association with the unsavory Abramoff?
Turfgrrl puts up a link to website that's suprisingly similar to this one.
Which amazingly enough mirrors many of the opinions found on this one!
What do all three have in common?
No solutions and a lot of hate. (Loads and loads of it!)
When did hate ever solve anything and why would anyone be comfortable posting such a link (aside from illustrating what a hate site looks like) on this blog of all places?
-ACR
Hang on a second. We’re getting a little off point. Turrfgirl supplied a list of figures purporting to show that Bush was abusing signing statements, and she provided a link to source material.
The link takes us to an article written by John W. Dean, whose past experiences in the Nixon White House certainly has equipped him to speak authoritatively on matters of presidential ethics and law.
Now, when someone tells me that a president is abusing a power, I want to know a couple of things. Are the presidential actions in accord with his powers as president? Dean seems to think that Bush is safe on this score because the same signing statement powers were regularly used by other presidents. Dean mentions that Clinton’s use of signing statements also seemed excessive.
Here’s my problem: "excessive" is a relative term. We can’t know if Bush used his authority excessively unless we know how many times other presidents used the same authority in similar circumstances. And Dean does not supply this information in his article. He says that Bush is using signing statement, rather than vetoes, to "nullify laws past by congress."
But the branches of government would not be co-equal if the president were to jump of a bridge every time congress passed a law requiring him to do so, and if congress feels that the president is using signing statements to nullify its laws, congress can impeach him on those grounds.
Dean knows all this: He’s familiar with impeachments.
Don Pesci -
On Reid, after legally accepting the boxing tickets, Reid voted against the legislation that the Nevada Boxing Commission was pushing. Further, it would have been illegal for him to reimburse them for the "tickets".
It was confusing to glean that from the AP article, especially after the AP changed the article.
On Reid and Abramoff, since Abramoff did not donate a dime to any of Reid's campaigns, I assume you are referring to the tribes that donated to Reid. Since the tribes were fighting against the opening of casinos, and Reid, like every other Senator from NV since the Flamingo opened, is vehemently against the opening of casinos outside of Nevada regardless of donations, what is the quid pro quo that you are alleging?
Here is a rundown on the effects of Abramoff's influence on the political donations of native american tribes.
BTW, you know whose name does show up on the list of recipients of Abramoff? Rob Simmons (second link, three times for total of $1250). Neither here nor there.
Bluecoat said: "ACR, Bush brought hate to the debate BTW!!!!"
Nope.
That's you.
You hate Bush; don't assume that Bush supporters or Bush himself hate you back.
Hate's a one-way street and affects the hater not the hated.
Thus; it's your problem - you own it.
It affects how you think, what you say, what you post etc. and has no impact on others at all.
-ACR
Thats what you come up with from an aside to a comment about Harry Reid not receiving Abramoff donations?
And I avoid facts?
Gabe
Just want to get the terms straight. I am saying, not alleging, that Reid's association with Abramoff was unsavory; it is not illegal or unethical. The relationship is unsavory mostly because Abramoff is unsavory.
Reid's acceptance of the boxing tickets was, some ethical purists think, unethical. I think it’s just stupid. If you have rules designed to demonstrate to your constituents that you are St. Francis, it is stupid not to avoid the near occasions of sin -- especially when you are accusing the opposition of being black with sin.
You won't get away with this. There are just too many hypocrisy hounds around looking to crucify poor innocents like Reid.
DP - Obviously the two issues are seperate and I agree that accepting the boxing credentials was dumb (interestingly, McCain, who also accepted the credentials, tried to reimburse the promoter for them by sending a check for $1500. Because the credentials have no face value, it would have been illegal for Bob Arum to accept the money, but McCain wouldn't take it back. Arum ended up donating the $ to the Catholic Charities).
That said, exactly what was Reid's relationship with Abramoff? It seems that Abramoff took over several lobbying accounts of tribes that had previously donated to Reid and they continued to donate to Reid. Am I missing something fundemental?
D_R - My comments about Simmons were an aside; I had a main point that you found it convenient to ignore.
D_R - my comment was a response to Don Pesci; I have no idea what you thought I was replying to. That said, my statement was complete, 4 years ago Simmons received a campaign contribution from Abramoff. It is largely irrelevant that 3-4 years later, he returned the contribution - everyone returned their direct Abramoff contributions! I was pointing out that Reid, who DP pointed out had an Abramoff problem, never received a direct contribution.
I can understand why one day a judge will feel the right to be so condescending; why do you?
ACR -
I'm not sure I even dare ask but, TG linked to NYT, WaPo, and CNN...
Which one are you saying is the hate group?
And is CPUSA properly called a hate group? Misguided followers of a largely defunct political philosophy I could see, but a hate group?
Just to clarify TSC above:
Point 3 - I feel comfortable speculating that every member of congress has taken a direct contribution from some lobbyist or another at some time, but Abramoff directly contributed exclusively to Republicans. See my comment on Reid upthread for a link to a review of Abramoff's clients' donating habits.
Also, I'm with CMC on this - Heads up, lets throw all the crooks out regardless of party identification, and I think (and hope) that more of their side will be perp walked out by the time this is over.
Post a Comment