Another reason to vote Dem and give Bush a shiner

This is a short diary as the facts have been covered extensively by mbw at http://www.dailykos.com/....  mbw put it in the context of the Alito nomination.  I am presenting it here in the context of a tactic to show the American people just how secretive this administration has been.

My premise here is that there would probably be considerable risk to Dem long-term control if they get right into Bush bashing.  Not that he doesn't deserve it completely, but probably 10-20 of the potentially new House seats will be from red/purple districts.  Immediate Bush-bashing is just not an option in these areas.  

Picking a fight on Executive Order 13233 would be a method to cause folks in these purple districts to question a secretive action of the Bushies, rather than rebel against an action of a hypothetically overzealous Congress (the "there they go again" scenario).

Executive Order 13233 was adopted in the early days of GWB's administration.  It is described here: http://www.arl.org/....  There have been several attempts to recind and/or nullify it in the last few Congresses:  HR1493 (108th), HR2331 (109th), and S1517 (108th). These bills have gone nowhere.

With a Dem Congress, nullifying EO 13233 could be brought up and passed, finally.  It would put the onus squarely on Bush to use only his second veto to block an open government initiative.  So that means the only two things he would be against would be powerful new medical treatments and open government.  This scenario would engender more of a subtle but durable head scratch (neighbor to neighbor: what is Bush all about anyway?) from folks in my part of the world (AL), than any new investigations might.

If handled correctly, such as Clinton weighing in saying he wouldn't mind if his papers were released, this could be an early and substantial PR (and governance) win for the Dems.

The poetic justice in this could be profound.  Again, if handled correctly, it would be big black eye for Bush.

•  I like the way you think...

  but, I dunno. How much traction is this issue really likely to have?

  And, heh, if Bush believes he can protect his secrets after he's gone by his own executive order, he better be darn sure his successor is a rethug. Rescinding an EO is one of the easiest things a new prez can do.

  Perhaps it's worth raising for some funzies, but EOs are pretty arcane, as viewed by the public and this stuff lends itself fairly well to national security arguments, some of which may even be justified.

  by TerribleTom on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 07:26:40 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the "commpliment."

    Probably not much traction given the pent up anger, the misconception of rural/southern/western politics here, and the anticipated lack of interest in this diary, but I thought I should say it anyway.

    So I couch my views on "gigging" Bush in terms of what can I say to my Congressman (Cramer) that is meaningful and constructive.  Cramer has been under pressure to go repug, yet has resisted.  He has resisted because (I assume) he apparently doesn't believe in R philosophy, but still has these real political constraints.  I suspect that this is the case in many "fed up with Bush" red/purple districts.  So this seemed like a place to start.

    You're absolutely right about EO's being arcane.  But that is what I was looking for as a suggestion for what our enlightened, soon-to-be leadership should look for, to start the ball rolling.  Something low key that could be foisted on the other guys (refute the negative) and turned into a major issue and used effectively for Dem purposes.

    As to national security, I can only repeat that it must be handled correctly.  This means that the original law was in effect since 1978 with no problem and Bush issued the EO in March 2001 (i.e. one of his very first acts as Pres, and before 9/11).

    I fear a misinterpretation of this prospective swing such that a long-term Dem majority is jeapordized early on.  Much like Clinton's "gays in the military," right out of the box push.  And I don't say that that was wrong, just ill-timed.  An early veto of a reasonable bill could well put Bush on the defensive and change the tone of the debate.

    Last, I just don't know what is going to happen in 2008.  Nobody does.  If a Dem wins, great, but this should and can be addressed now.

    Again, thanks.  Sorry for being so long.  Appreciate your comment.

    BTW, what's a funzie?

    by Terra Mystica on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 08:45:46 PM PDT