Skip to main content

The Politico reports that House Republicans are plotting their strategies in preparation for contempt of Congress votes on Miers and Bolten.

And guess what? They're trying to come up with brainy-sounding excuses not to vote for it. Shocker!

Republicans see major flaws in the Democratic arguments for a contempt vote, including the risk of losing any court battle with the Bush administration over the issue of executive privilege.

"This is a reckless gamble, as it relates to the integrity of this Congress and the authority of future Congresses," [GOP staffer Brian] Kennedy said. A loss in a court fight with the White House — in this case, over Bush’s refusal to allow current and former aides such as Bolten, Miers and Karl Rove to testify or turn over internal White House documents related to the prosecutor firings — could well extend the right of future presidents to claim executive privilege when shielding their actions from Congress.

Indeed, such a loss could do just that.

Or, it could get punted right back out of court under the political question doctrine.

But one thing we know about Republicans: if there's something fear-able, they'll opt first to fear it.

So what will the House GOP be doing to avoid such a loss? Why, ducking the fight, of course. What else would a Republican (Look out! Terror! Go fight it, soldier! I'll wait here in the airport bathroom!) do?

At stake is the right of the legislative branch to conduct effective oversight of the executive branch. Period. That's it. While Miers, Bolten and others may have a theoretical leg to stand on with respect to the question of whether or not they're covered by claims of executive privilege, here's what they can't do: they can't blow off the committee, ignore subpoenas, and not even show up to assert the privilege. That's just flat contempt, open and shut. And if it stands, it means nobody from the executive need ever show up before a Congressional committee -- Democratic or Republican -- ever again.

And House GOP pants-wetters claim it's this fear that makes them... not want to fight at all.

Well, if you believe, for instance, that a Republican Congress should be able to compel testimony from a Democratic administration, then here are your options:

  1. Stand up and fight side-by-side with Democrats as Members of the United States House of Representatives for the integrity of the statutory contempt process
  2. Stick by your story that the court battle is too risky, and instead urge your colleagues to hold Miers and Bolten in inherent contempt
  3. Eliminate the whole question of contempt and just impeach the president for his obstruction, as was the plan with the third article of impeachment against Richard M. Nixon:

    Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

    In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.

    In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.

    (Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)

Well, Republicans? What's your plan for protecting the legislative prerogative?

What's that? Can't hear you. Come again?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:56 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The GOP has no foresight. (16+ / 0-)

    The really believed they were going to have a permanent majority, and they are too stupid to understand that unless the legislative branch sticks up for itself, they become irrelevant.

    They are authoritarian, pure and simple.

    "When the people lead, the leaders will follow." - american pastoral, kossak

    by filmgeek83 on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:01:05 AM PDT

  •  We literally have one branch of government. (10+ / 0-)

    George W. Bush. The gift that keeps on giving.

  •  So the argument boils down to (6+ / 0-)

    we have to give Bush what he wants or the courts might give him what he wants?

    Or more seriously, give in to Bush without a fight so that we can hold the line against the next Democratic President.

    •  Sounds much like the (4+ / 0-)

      demands that we give Bush his Supreme Court nominees. And his war money.

      "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

      by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:18:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or rather... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frandor55, Cartoon Peril, David Moore

      ... let's cave in to the President so that future Congresses won't have to cave in to future Presidents.

      Precedent-schmecedent.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:35:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very much like the "nuclear option" to amend (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newfie

      the Senate rules to do away with the filibuster when the Republicans still controlled the Senate.  As I recall the argument went something like, "Don't use the filibuster because if you do, we may be forced to remove it from the Senate rules, thus permanently weakening the minority position in the Senate, and it will all be the Democrats fault for making us do it because we just can't stop ourselves from doing it."  It's like a cornered hostage taker saying that if the cops don't go away, I will kill a hostage and it will all be the fault of the police.  They make the same sense that all thugs do.

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:43:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When Nixon used executive privilege (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annetteboardman, Randall Sherman

    During Watergate didn't use just such an argument in a court case when the Supreme Court ruled against him in his attempt to prevent his aides from testifying before Congress?

  •  Isn't this a bit premature? (9+ / 0-)

    I'm always up for some good Repug bashing, but this whole diary is predicated on the belief that our Gumby-spined Democrats are actually going to take action on this matter. I see little evidence that's happening.

    "How come I never land on a short, dull one?"

    by jhecht on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:04:24 AM PDT

  •  All that only matters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Moore

    if enough "Democrats" choose to roll over for the Rubes.  Unfortunately, it's all too predictable that a critical mass of House Dems will do just that.  Who here will bet against that?

  •  Remember, they impeached Clinton over a blowjob (9+ / 0-)

    The idea that Democrats should pull punches because it might set a precedent where Republicans would follow is ludicrous.

    They're not going to pull any punches.  If they can think of any dirty trick, any constitutional maneuver, or any overtly illegal act which they know they won't get called on, they'll do it.

    If the Dems have something which is legal and constitutional and which could help restore the balance of power - damn - get on with it and stop yakking!

    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. - Ayn Rand

    by CA Libertarian on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:06:48 AM PDT

    •  D plan is do nothing, get govt in 2008, then pull (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justme, MrJersey

      all the levers themselves.  D plan is NOT to eliminate the levers.

      Ed Gruberman, you have failed to grasp Tae Quan Leap. Approach me that you might see.

      by Cartoon Peril on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:10:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which worries me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Peril, MrJersey

        nearly as much as having a Republican in office next time. If the Dems (read Hillary) decide that no matter what atrocities they foist upon the public, nobody will do anything about it until they're out of office, I might have to become a temporary Republican just to strengthen the opposition party.

        Eeeewwww. I just grossed myself out.

        The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Shelley

        by justme on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:57:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I really think that Pelosi and company are (0+ / 0-)

        terrified that any principled action at this point may do something to spoil the annointment of Hillary to the Presidency.  Were Hillary to lose, the wrath of the Clintons would be extraordinary.  

        And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

        by MrJersey on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:49:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Leadership style (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrJersey, CA Libertarian

      The problem with too many Democratic leaders is that they aren't leaders.  Their only skill is in trying to position themselves so that the maximum number of voters will support them.  They think they can do this by seeming centrist.  So they avoid radical actions like confronting a runaway President.  However, actual leadership means choosing a course of action and showing others to support them.  Also, in trying to avoid seeming radical they aren't confronting the real radicals.  In fact they are letting the real radicals get away with subverting the entire system of government we have.  

      It is time to change our own Democratic leadership.  Reid and Pelosi have let the Republicans get away with murder.  Replace them.  And while were at it we need a Presidential nominee who is an actual leader.  A person like Sen. Clinton would be a disastrous nominee because she is only trying to position herself in front of the crowd.  Americans see right through that.

  •  On a related note, Gingrich shutdown govt in '95 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Habanero, David Moore

    We can go there too, another way to get leverage over the Bush administration.  Nothing the Republicans didn't think of and do first.

    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. - Ayn Rand

    by CA Libertarian on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:08:56 AM PDT

    •  On a related note, Republicans have balls (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Terminus, Da Rock, Zero Carb Rob

      Here we are taking Rebubs to task for their lack of support - I don't see any Dems standing up and screaming BLOODY FKN MURDER that their power has been usurped, negated, relagated to the trash heap, that they've been made irrelevant.

      Somehow, they'll be told that voting to hold these crooks in contempt makes them look soft on terror, and they;ll crumple like an empty bag of potato chips.

      •  Republicans have superior party organization (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snazzzybird, cybersaur, agnostic, MrJersey

        Mind you, they achieve this at the expense of morality, common sense, and adherence to the constitution.

        It's a lot easier to keep people in lockstep when you've got a simplistic agenda (9/11 9/11 9/11, hate the gays and the muslims and the immigrants and the ...).  The Democrats are too diverse, too subtle in their differences - thinking too much about the issues.

        Mind you, the Democratic approach is more responsible.

        But in a gloves-off fight, it does not serve them well.

        There are some occasions when specific views on political agenda need to be put aside for the Greater Good, and this is one of them.

        Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. - Ayn Rand

        by CA Libertarian on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:26:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Remember Newt almost imploded the GOP (0+ / 0-)

      with that trick. He forgot when he shut down the government that many many of his base got checks from the Feds for one reason or another, such as SS or vet benefits. His shutdown meant that these people, living hand to mouth already, suddenly found themselves with no resources at all.  The GOP paid for that the next election.  

  •  bush has to have (0+ / 0-)

    pictures of all the GOP'ers tapping their feet in airport bathrooms. As well as cell phone recordings of them calling their mistresses.

    John Edwards - the repugs worst nightmare!!

    by Da Rock on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:14:55 AM PDT

  •  Someone should tell the GOoPers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird

    that they need not be concerned with the authority of future Congresses. Since none of these goobers are going to be there.

    I'm not saying there won't be Repugs in office. But those who have been Bush-worshippers will be pushed out a few dozen at a time.

    "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

    by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:17:03 AM PDT

  •  They'll do whatever Cheney tells them to do. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nitetalker, Ken in MN, Leo in NJ

    It really is no more complicated than that.
    It won't help, but that's what they will do.
    Obstruct to the last man defending the White House, and then off to Paraguay.

  •  Kennedy here is Boehner's spokesman (0+ / 0-)

    Great post, Kagro! I love your converage of this issue.

    One minor quibble to consider while the post is relatively fresh: you might want to edit the "Kennedy" reference in the content you quoted from Politico to read "[GOP Minority Leader John Boehner's spokesman] Kennedy"  or something like that.

    Probably there are many like me who skim posts before deciding whether to read. That's what I did here and I thought "Kennedy" might be our Teddy. Of course that didn't make sense. I followed the Politico link to find out.

  •  Hilarious (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird, greenearth, lurks a lot

    After licking the boots of GWB for 6 years and letting him completely emaculate Congress, suddenly the House GOP is concerned about protecting the power of Congress to investigate?

    Especially considering the fact that that they NEVER used that power from '00-'06?

    I hope that this is the best they can come up with.

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

    by gsbadj on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:33:16 AM PDT

    •  one exception - raid of jefferson's office (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth

      And that smelled of week-old carcass at the time, having Fatass Hastert mouthing platitudes about the separation of powers to defend the actions of a democrat...then Mark Foley's little email problem surfaced, complete with revelations of (take me to)Denny's complicity.
      things that make you go {Ralph!!}

      Apparently only elections of Republicans have consequences. My bad.

      by kamarvt on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:14:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  some one please (4+ / 0-)

    give king George a blow job, so we can impeach his sorry ass

  •  Great diary Kagro X! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

    That is a money quote.

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:35:39 AM PDT

  •  article of impeachment against Richa.. um, George (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nitetalker

    Why can't you just change the name, and date, of the exact above article of impeachment and re-file it in Congress? What does it take -

    ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CONGRESSPERSON WITH MORE BALLS THAN A GNAT?* (you too, girls.)

    What has this fucking congress come to?

    *(Not to impugn the hard work, bravery & dedication of gnats - if our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES worked 1/10th as hard as gnats, President Pelosi would already have us out of Iraq and... oh wait. Nancy Pelosi doesn't want us out of Iraq, she just wants to get re-elected. Oops - sorry.)

    The most common form of human stupidity is forgetting what one is trying to do - Friedrich Nietzsche

    by David Mason on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:38:07 AM PDT

  •  Delay, Delay, Delay (0+ / 0-)

    Run out the clock -- they only have 15 months to go, less if you consider November 2008 as the deadline instead of January 2009.

    Once the Congress is Lame Duck, no one is going to mind/be surprised if they obstruct it more.

    So they really only have to fight a rear-guard action for a year.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, My God! Perhaps I am! -Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:38:38 AM PDT

    •  BBC this morning made the point that (5+ / 0-)

      GWB can do a lot of damage in 15 months and he has no incentive to play nice now.  The particular fly in the Brit soup today is GWB's enthusiastic use of GWOT and continued references to God helping the US against the godless terrorists.
      The Brits have already said that they no longer use the term GWOT because it is counterproductive, in the same way claiming God as your personal property is not a good way to win new friends or keep old ones.
      Even Karen Hughes in an interview on BBC today admitted that GWB's terms might have less than positive consequences.
      It is interesting that the nearer the end we come, the more stressed out the world is over what GWB might do next.  

  •  I'm trying to understand (4+ / 0-)

    But there seems to be a circular logic here that's escaping me..if you let the claim of executive privilege stand, then aren't you arming future preidents with that same authority by precedent of not having challenged it in the same situation in the past?

  •  Extra Tip for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blueiz, snazzzybird

    This bit deserves and extra tip: Look out! Terror! Go fight it, soldier! I'll wait here in the airport bathroom! lol

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison

    by Hotspur18 on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:44:50 AM PDT

  •  *sporfle* (0+ / 0-)

    "What else would a Republican (Look out! Terror! Go fight it, soldier! I'll wait here in the airport bathroom!) do?"

    Perfect!

    Cry "Mandate!" and let slip the hounds of accountability.

    by sagra on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:45:46 AM PDT

  •  Fear of a Blue President (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but if Pubs don't shape up right now, they can just eat it when Dems don't answer their stern letters to attend their committees.

    Rule of law is now, or never.

    But they way the political climate is shaping up, I am no longer sure if I see the point of opposing how Pubs do things.

    After all, they will never likely get to do them, ever again.

    When you turn on your own country's children, it's not your country anymore.

    by cskendrick on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:46:17 AM PDT

    •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

      Never misunderestimate the ability of the sheeple to elect the worst possible person for the job.
      Exhibit A: George W. Bush (2004)
      Most of 'merica aren't political junkies like us DKos readers, they'll buy into the crap spewing out of some GoP Presidential wannabe and pull the lever for the least qualified, most downright dangerous wingnut authoritarian they can find and we'll be talking about it for the next four or eight (twelve or sixteen?) years!

      republicans have killed more Americans than the terrorists!

      by cybersaur on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:38:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You should see the local Fox affiliate's report (0+ / 0-)

        on Hillary's debate performance.

        Two sentences, containing the words "flip-flopper" and "another John Kerry?"

        That's all about 70% of the electorate will ever know about any candidate, R or D.

  •  Fear itself (0+ / 0-)

    On a side note...

    >But one thing we know about Republicans: if there's
    >something fear-able, they'll opt first to fear it.

    I agree with the general concept, but I think we need a compound verb here: not "fear" but "generate fear," or something like that.

    Republicans, like Chuck Norris, don't feel actual fear. Their senses are too dulled, and their self-image too aggrandized, for that. Thus, they don't worry about the looming ecological cataclysm, exploding budget deficits, disappearing personal freedoms, horrific economic inequity, imploding public schools, or any of the real things any sensible person OUGHT to be afraid of.

    On the other hand, they do depend on CREATING fear -- in the public at large, and among their fellow legislators, and in the news media and blogosphere -- because most of their agenda rests on that. It doesn't matter so much WHAT people are afraid of: brown people, socialized medicine, queer Democratic anti-war public school teachers sodomizing your little children ... fear itself is the point. This is just the latest minor skirmish in their very long, and remarkably successful, fear-mongering campaign.

    •  important that the fear is permanent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ashwken

      all the things you cite that a rational person might fear are also issues that can be managed to some degree, in other words, they have possible resolutions.
      Republican-grown fear is best if it's of the other type - irrational and permanent fear. Until we kill every Muslim on Earth, we can still fear the spectre of terra. Until we eradicate all brown non Americans, we can fear immigrants. Until the Democratic Party (or homosexuality, or science, or ...) is outlawed and enforced with public executions, we can fear them, too.

      The last thing Republicans want is the idea that people can control their own destinies and alleviate their fears to gain any ground.

      I will not fear
      Fear is the mind-killer
      Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
      I will face my fear.
      I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
      And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
      Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
      Only I will remain.
                             Frank Herbert - DUNE

      Apparently only elections of Republicans have consequences. My bad.

      by kamarvt on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:28:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  These plague infested Rats... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    ...are going down with their ship Captain Torture has 'decided'  that.

    The real question is:

    'Are 'Sellout' Reid, 'Rabbit' Rahm and Queen Nancy going to take the Democratic Party with them.

    If Al Wynn is an example of whom The Queen thinks should be in the People's House then maybe that's all for the good.

    Our elected government is rotten to the core and the rot needs to be cut out. Republicans and their antics are a distraction from the main task at hand.

    The slaughter of the Dem 'LeaderSheep'.

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:56:22 AM PDT

  •  Only thing Rs respect is pulling money from (0+ / 0-)

    their latest torture/invasion/police state project.  Everything else is just crap to them, the courts are incapable of stopping them, even if they were stacked with people like Alleged Judge Mukasey.

    Ed Gruberman, you have failed to grasp Tae Quan Leap. Approach me that you might see.

    by Cartoon Peril on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:57:41 AM PDT

  •  You Said It! (0+ / 0-)

    But one thing we know about Republicans: if there's something fear-able, they'll opt first to fear it.

    And then they'll use it to strip our rights and loot the treasury...what's left of both, that is.

    Reading the Rumsfeld memos, I can now say unequivocally, that in my thinking the Republics are the real terrorists.  

    Osama may say it, but they magnify it, twist it and then trumpet it.  As far as I can tell, the Busheney Administration is in cahoots with the enemy.

    Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:58:53 AM PDT

  •  There is a second reason why (0+ / 0-)

    the Rethugs in the House are scared of losing a battle in the courts.

    could well extend the right of future presidents to claim executive privilege when shielding their actions from Congress.

    The thought that if Congress loses, then their hopes for disrupting a Hillary Clinton administration are going out the window.

  •  slight edit request... (0+ / 0-)

    It might not be such a good idea to invite the entire Republican caucus to
    "come again"
    Especially when airport bathrooms are mentioned in the same piece.

    BTW,this

    Look out! Terror! Go fight it, soldier! I'll wait here in the airport bathroom!

    Would make a helluva sig line...

    And of course, the Authoritarians have a fourth option: lie, smear, obstruct, shift blame, deny consequences, and make tortured analogies and strawman arguments on TV without rebuttal.

    Apparently only elections of Republicans have consequences. My bad.

    by kamarvt on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:01:02 AM PDT

  •  Challenging Bush in Court - A mistake? (0+ / 0-)

    With the Supreme Court stacked the way it is, if the Democrats challenge the President's claims of executive privilege, or more importantly, Bush/Cheney's claims of a Unitary Executive who can act alone without oversight in times of war, the results could be a disaster if the Supreme Court sides with Bush/Cheney. And this is a very real possibility. I would suspect that the congress is very aware of this possibility and would at all costs like to avoid setting a very dangerous precedent.

    •  Challenging him in court is unnecessary. (0+ / 0-)

      They can take care of business directly, with the inherent contempt process.

      But they won't, because it's scary and looks "different."

      So they'll opt to go to court, and if they're lucky, the case will get dismissed.

      But even if you're worried about getting a poor decision from the courts, the first question you need to ask yourself is whether it's smarter to go now while you still have a slim chance, or sit on you hands and wait until there aren't any non-Bush judges left.

      •  Even if they got a court opinion against Jr (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrJersey

        Who is going to enforce it? I can see Jr doing an Andy Jackson and saying "They have made their ruling; let them enforce it".

        A runaway executive branch and a captive judiciary and a gutless Congress, where do we look for help?

        •  The Press nt (0+ / 0-)

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:41:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Press??? (0+ / 0-)

            Oh, you mean the right wing echo machine that always presents two sides of every issue: the well thought out mainstream opinion of the Administration and political establishment, and the looney, fringe, far-Left ravings of the Democratic Communist blogosphere.

            And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

            by MrJersey on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:56:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  So if you see someone robbing a bank (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Leo in NJ

    You look the other way? If he were to be arrested he might beat the rap and this would encourage other people in the future to rob banks since there is no penalty. If he is not arrested then no one knows there is no penalty for bank robbery.
    Got to love GOP logic.

  •  GOP response? Incoherent Contempt of Congress (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nitetalker
  •  If Senator Clinton is elected (0+ / 0-)

    I have to think the republicans are going to rediscover their congressional prerogatives, about 1 nanosecond later. If, as expected, they lose seats in the senate, they are going to have to fight with everything they've got to get the slightest bit of information of of her. That in my mind would be a good thing, as they will not legitimately be able to argue later that they shouldn't do the same with any other president. They'll try, but  with the exception of their base, I doubt it will stick.

    Do Pavlov's dogs chase Schroedinger's cat?

    by corwin on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:10:23 AM PDT

  •  Our country is irreparably broken (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nitetalker

    because of republicans.  They stymie every effort toward justice and righteousness.  

    Can it ever be repaired?

    •  It's Not the Republicans, It's the Economy (0+ / 0-)

      This is basically a corporate revolution.

      We certainly can't repair it till we recognize what it is, and then agree we have a chance.

      The Dems we have agree there is no chance.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:43:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Keeping Their Powder Dry (0+ / 0-)

    Why shouldn't Republicans learn from Democrats' great success in the minority, and keep their powder dry? Look at how much that can achieve to protect Congress' power!

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:21:43 AM PDT

  •  Loved this" (0+ / 0-)

    What else would a Republican (Look out! Terror! Go fight it, soldier! I'll wait here in the airport bathroom!) do?

    The Seminole Democrat
    A blue voice calling from the deep red

    by SemDem on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:26:12 AM PDT

  •  This is incredible! (0+ / 0-)

    The same political party that campaigns on "Law and Order," doesn't feel they should be "subject to." Apparently, obeying the law is for others; not for republicans. I don't know if I've ever seen bigger hypocrites. Unbelieveable!

    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal

    by lyvwyr101 on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:26:23 AM PDT

    •  Law and Order refers to (0+ / 0-)

      the law being for other people while the GOP orders them what to do.

    •  it's very logical depending on your view (0+ / 0-)

      of the law, for instance:

      PEACHUM: the law was made for one thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don’t understand it, or are prevented by naked misery from obeying it. And anyone who wants a crumb of this exploitation for himself must obey the law strictly

      BROWN: I see, then you believe our judges are corruptible

      PEACHUM:  not at all, sir, not at all. our judges are absolutely incorruptible: its more than money can do to make them give a fair verdict.

      Bertolt Brecht, Three Penny Opera

      "Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the bastard is dead, the bitch that bore him is again in heat." -Bertolt Brecht

      by Jeffersonian Democrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:36:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Democrats, of course, will fold again (0+ / 0-)

    You are kidding yourself if you think the Dems are going to really do anything but hold their breath and posture.

  •  Kagro, I'm so glad you put that 3rd article of I. (0+ / 0-)

    against Nixon in your diary. great piece of work. If I had a million dollars, I'd start a campaign showing this document, only thing I'd change Nixon's name to George W. Bush--if just to get the point across to congress members apparently not into shielding our country's national rule of law from trangressors or protecting our Constitution.

    All things considered, I'd rather die being a noble progressive with nothing than a crazy conservative who'll stop at nothing to have everything

    by PeckingOrder on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 07:58:27 AM PDT

  •  Fellow Kossacks - DEMS? Corrupt also? (0+ / 0-)

    The way Democrats consistently dodge these efforts to investigate fellow Republicans all the way to Bush/Cheneyt makes me just wonder how many Dems are just as corrupt and afraid of realiation if they make any waves.

    Actually I am convinced that there are far too many corrupt Dems in DC.

    Sure makes our job harder on the progressive side when investigating Republcians really means " calling the kettle black". I for one sure would like to know who on the Dem side needs to be investigated.

    Frustrating to know that this might be the case.

    Take example Lieberman and what my insiders say/know that Joe is on the take from BIG PHARMA through his wife and BushCo has so much dirt on him that he is basically blackmailed into being the worst kind of  DINO we've ever known. I have no doubt that is really what is transpiring here.

    Thoughts? Are Dems covering there own ass by dodging investigations and NOT STIRRING THE POT?

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

    by AustinSF on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:02:03 AM PDT

  •  So the GOP'ers want to "Cut & Run" ? (0+ / 0-)

    So the Repubs in Congress want to cut & run from a showdown with the Administration? I thought they were the ones who want to fight pre-emptive battles all over the world to save democracy?

    The Democratic leadership needs to call this out for what it is...yet another proof of cowardice and treason on the part of the Republicans in Congress.

    It's easy for the Repblicans to claim bravery when they are only risking the lives of other peoples' sons & daughters in the military, but when it comes to risking their own power they are ready to fold when the President says "boo".

  •  Pelosi: "It's a terrible position... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth, MrJersey

    ...to put them in."

    I can just hear her making their argument for them.

    Walking back further from impeachment is off the table

    to questioning executive privilege,

    to questioning Presidential authority

    to let's just give him everything he wants.

    How much worse can she get?

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:20:43 AM PDT

  •  Look who's really playing "politics" now:: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    It's Pelosi and the collapsing Democrats.

    Like marionettes with no string tension!

    Whqat the hell are they so afraid of? Failure? I thought that's what they're doing now!  Failure to even attempt to lead.  Do they think we don't notice?

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:23:28 AM PDT

  •  Greatest. Line. Ever. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    But one thing we know about Republicans: if there's something fear-able, they'll opt first to fear it.

    That sums it all up.

  •  Save The Consitution (0+ / 0-)

    and / or bring back the Chicago 8.  This is a watershed in our nation's history.  Either the separation of powers works or it doesn't.  It's pure and simple.  If the Executive Branch and corporate mass media now run the country, then Congress needs to let us know by doing nothing.  After that, we should look forward to a "Denver 8" or better yet, a "Minneapolis 8" because everything our Federal Government supposedly stands for is then broken.

  •  Agreed, however (0+ / 0-)

    Is it just me or is this taking FOREVER!!!  When was this a story two months ago?  Why do the Dems keep giving them deadline after deadline that's just ignored.  Why are we letting them run out the clock?  I worry everyone has either forgotten or could care less about this story anymore.

    PS What's up with Schumer and Feingold?  (For another diary.)

  •  Cheers for Madeline Albright! (0+ / 0-)

    She was the chief draw at a Tom Allen for US Senate fundraiser here last week.  For a $100 donation the former Secretary of State would give you a lap-dance while explaining how to solve the crisis in Sudan.

    Top that Susan Collins!  

  •  Inherent contempt (0+ / 0-)

    I simply cannot understand the reasoning (?) of the Democratic leadership of Congress! Bush is polling in the upper 20's, he is shredding the Constitution one article at a time. Poll after poll show that the people of this country want the Democrats to act! What more do they need?
    I presume the goal of the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader is to increase the number of Democrats in both Houses 2008; then use that increased majority to start cleaning up after the present mal-Administration. Fine.
    But they don't have to add to the mess! So Bush says the AG is Mukasey or no one. Then let it be no one. At least the Democratic Party will have gone on record as being against a judge who couldn't answer a simple question: waterboarding is torture - yes or no. The executive branch claims that it can simply forbid anyone who has ever worked for it from appearing in front of a Congressional committee. This is a claim that strikes at the heart of Congress' ability to carry out its responsibilities as set forth in the Constitution. There is no reason for Democrats to act as enablers for a corrupt, incompetent and unconstitutional (judging solely by its actions) administration. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site