At the start of the year, there was a great, new, and powerful disturbance in the political force: Barack Obama. Out of nowhere this rookie with his ideas of change, hope and new politics swept through the establishment turning it upside down. His sudden rise caught the Right off guard and led to the defeat of the seemingly invincible Billary duo. As the first African-American nominee in US history, Barack Obama had everything on his side: an unpopular president, unpopular war, worsening economy, and a people eager to see something new in a tired country. Barack Obama has given this country a new sense of energy and whether or not he is the best candidate to solve every last problem, a better choice than the empty Republican option, John McCain. Now in the early days of August, it seems as though the Obama train has started to run on empty or so it may appear...
I have been struggling with how Congress has handled it's oversight responsibilities in the face of clear obstruction from the Executive branch. I am extremely frustrated by the "Executive privelege" argument that the Bush administration is using to avoid Congressional oversight and obscure criminal activities within the administration. While reflecting on this, it occurred to me that Congress has legislative tools (beyond inherent contempt) to enforce oversight including the all-important power of the purse. To this end, I am hoping for a discussion of possible consequences that (hopefully) a Congressperson or Senator could draft into legislation.
I'm not talking about abridging someone's right to "take the 5th" - because that is really only relevant when a crime has clearly been committed. I am suggesting that a law should be drafted that addresses the kind of obstruction and obfuscation that we have seen with the Bush administration.
I know that a lot of this has been in the news for a few weeks, but here is a prime example of how mainstream, corporate media is echoing Rovian tactics in its echoing of such talking points as "Obama the elitist" and "Obama the arrogant."
Of course, given his close and direct ties to the most smug, petulant elitist to ever hold the office of U.S. President, Karl Rove most certainly knows elitism and arrogance when he sees it.
Ah, John McCain. The maverick. ...Excuse me, the Maverick, capital "M."
He really wanted this to be a clean election. He really, really wanted this to be a campaign about the issues facing America. He really, really, really wanted it to be respectful and substantive, all the way up through November.
Lord knows he tried! But then Barack Obama FORCED him to start throwing buckets of slop and slime.
Poor John McCain had no choice, at all. Obama FORCED John McCain to act like Karl Rove. How?
John McCain himself explains below, in a talk with David "I-Like-Karl-Rove-Because-I've-Eaten-Quail-At-His-Table" Broder.
The anti-gay attack machine worked before; will it work again? I'm a contributing writer for queer media cites AfterEllen.com/AfterElton.com, and today they're running my article that asks just that question of a wide variety of media and political figures including Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Congressman Barney Frank, Joe Scarborough, AmericaBlog.com's John Aravosis, and a number of others -- including Karl Rove himself.
OK, we're not going to get an impeachment. We're not even going to see Rove hauled up on contempt charges.
We know your line, Nancy. These actions would only distract public attention from the really bad job the Republicans are doing with the economy and the war and stuff like that. That's the only way to guarantee a win in the Presidential race and to pick up supermajorities in Congress. Ya, sure, as they say in my neck of the woods.
So we rank and file "purists," we unwashed heathens who are really too simple to "get it" about Realpolitik are pretty much powerless. We can't force you to start impeachment proceedings. We can't force you to hold a full-house vote to give KKKarl a hotfoot. We can yell, we can scream, we can demonstrate, we can camp on your lawn, but we can't redirect your oh-so pragmatic focus onto our naively idealistic issues.
The Harvard Political Reviewlast night released an interview with Karl Rove. The very last question caught my eye:
Q. ...you recently said you believe Roger Clemens was telling the truth in his congressional testimony. What makes you believe him, and why do you think this issue has split along partisan lines?
Rove: You know, I’m not necessarily certain it has split along partisan lines. But I don’t know, I just know him, I’ve been around him, and he strikes me as a person of enormous integrity and decency. I just find his testimony more convincing than the former trainer. Roger Clemens just strikes me as a person of integrity.
When Karl Rove issues a proclamation about somebody having integrity, well the little hairs on your arm just about stand up.
Why in the world and when has Karl Rove "been around" Roger Clemens? I'm not thinking that Karl would have also had an (alleged) affair with a teenage Mindy McCready. So I did some Googling...
UPDATE: 8/5/2008- Congress is kind of like a box of chocolate, isn't it? You never know what you're going to get. Sometimes, they side with the Bush administration, like with FISA or the war appropriations bill.
And to counter that potential image the Rovian-quasi-Aikido politics of projection-deflection, attack first has been put into overdrive. All attack videos are the fruit of a strategy that kicked into high gear when it looked like Obama would win the nomination.
This topic has been gone over and over of late so at the risk of being yet another I have tried to cover it all in a summary that hits all the main elements.
Reasonable pre-assumptions on Obama positives are taken as attacks by The McCain campaign so they invert them as attacks to weaken Obama where he is strong, especially where McCain has a severe opposite weakness. All politicians and campaigns do this of course...it's just that McCain's effort goes the extra mile in deceit and underhandedness. The slick, centralized mean-spirited attacks always set new benchmarks for what can and will be done.
Like a Very expensive team of lawyers the guilty as hell Republican party will get their client (McCain/Bush) off scot free and have him smelling like roses and win their case. At the end the crusading Prosecutor (Obama) will end up looking like he should be found guilty instead....
Some political analysts and Republican strategists have questioned thenegativity of the McCain campaign at such an early stage of the general election, as if the campaign has a positive platform to run on. The tactics employed by Steve Schmidt and Karl Rove's other disciples come as no shock to anyone who payed attention in 2000 and 2004. The incredible nonsense beginning to emanate from John McCain's campaign constitutes the only possible way the far right can get their ancient, pasty excuse for a candidate elected. Meanwhile, Obama's campaign has dismissed the advertising with logic and dignity, an approach which has demonstrably failed against Rove's dirty politics in the past.
Several weeks ago I wrote a diary saying that Senator Obama was not doing well in the polls against McCain! Wow, did I receive a whopping from my fellow Kossacks. I was called a troll, a Republican troll, a Hillary-ite, etc. etc. Sadly, none of the many negative remarks I received could have been further from the truth!! I am the MOST loyal (or fervent) Democrat and BIGGEST Obama-supporter anyone could find. So, it gives me absolutely NO satisfaction to say today--when Rasmussen's Daily Tracking Poll has McCain AHEAD of Obama--I told you so.
THE POINT OF MY DIARY TODAY IS--AND WAS THEN--TO PLEASE URGE THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN TO WAKE UP, SMELL THE COFFEE AND FIGHT BACK BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!
People on the internet are no different from others in jumping to the conclusion that when they consider something offensive, it was intended to offend them. So, for example, there's considerable outrage over the little video, attributed to the McCain campaign, which insinuates that the Democratic presumptive nominee for President of the United States is arrogant, while the Republican presumptive nominee presumes to know for a fact that the Obama campaign is playing the "race card." Many who have seen the video have been inclined to conclude that making sport of their candidate is designed to somehow dampen their interest and support.
But what if it's not? What if, what is often identified as a Rovian tactic, actually plays to the Republican base and whoever else is inclined to feel resentment?
Just because it's good to know what's being discussed, have a look at the video over the fold.
Back in steerage the – so called – News Boys are whooping it up so's I can't nap. Hyenas. Could use a highball myself but Rug Rat says nix. Jerks will talk about me. As if that's not the problem.
Satan says to get a list of all the ones who have telephone cameras. Actually a good idea. Can't go near the hyenas – so called – as is. Had to lock 'em in steerage all week.
Rug rat did some good for once. Wall S.J. reporter has goods now on Boy Wonder. Fatties really hate him. I mean can't abide him. Living rebuke to their BBQ. She showed it to me on her transister when The Google wouldn't print. Going to bring the jerk on board, get some more angles from her. RR's idea – so called. Don't know why I'm paying Satan's helpers, their stuff's an embarrassment.
Next ad is going to be the big one though. R&D says News Boys will do it all for us for a pittance. Give The Snake a scoop. SB city this time for sure. Boy Wonder will never get off the mat, can't fatten himself up before DDay. Think I should label him Bean Pole at a friendly town hall, but SHelper says nix. What does he know?
Just occurred to me I gotta keep her highness home next week. If any jerk says HRH is a so called bean pole, she'll wig out the rest of summer. How do I explain that to her?
Back from the head. R&D says the Sunshine Boys are snarling about how I'm gonna lose Maricopa. One lousy poll. Bet the Spaghetti Bender is behind it. R&D wants me to go on KSAZ to give them the steely eye. Ain't gonna happen. Boy Wonder would spend all week talking about me on the defensive rather than whatever. HRH can do the rounds next week if she wants.
Bad enough we got to come back to this furnace every weekend. Not going anywhere.
We need some good old fashioned open-research blogging on the next plague of the Republic. In particular, we need to dig up the goods on one Steve Schmidt, protégé of Turdblossom himself, Karl Rove.
Josh Marshall put up an APB today that draws attention to how McCain can only go negative to have some hope of obtaining the White House.
In the wake of the favorable decision in the case of Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Harriet Miers, et al., the Congress has its eye back on the "subpoena power" ball. The court's decision has done more than simply reaffirm that Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten must obey Congressional subpoenas (under penalty of exactly what, we still have not figured out). It may also have emboldened Congressional investigators and shaken loose some other exercises of the subpoena power that were waiting in the wings.
U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, today demanded that Charles E.F. Millard, director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, immediately comply with a subpoena served July 16 by turning over documents regarding a report into the agency’s management and governance practices. The U.S. District Court today reaffirmed that the executive branch must comply with congressional subpoenas.
And this, via The Gavel, in the Government Oversight National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee:
Subcommittee Chairman Tierney and Full Committee Chairman Waxman threaten Michael Dominguez, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, with contempt after he reveals that he has ordered Dr. Kaye Whitley of the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to defy a subpoena to appear
And of course, there's the Judiciary committee's recent vote to hold Karl Rove in contempt for his refusal to comply with their subpoena, but that came before the court's ruling.
But if the action in the committees this week is any indication of a wider reawakening of interest in the subpoena power, things could really break open, sending the full extent of the Bush "administration's" stonewalling of all outside oversight spilling into view at long last.
The chairman of a House committee has warned Attorney General Michael Mukasey he could be held in contempt of Congress if he doesn’t turn over documents from an FBI interview with Vice President Dick Cheney.
Back on June 20th, subscription only Congressional Quarterly reported that:
Panel Chairman Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., is investigating the White House’s role in an EPA decision to bar California from regulating vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Separately, the panel is investigating the EPA’s decision to set a new smog pollution standard less stringent than what scientific advisers recommended.
Waxman had scheduled a Friday hearing to hold two Bush administration officials in contempt for failing to produce documents he had requested in subpoenas. But he said he would hold off on the contempt vote after learning the White House had invoked executive privilege.
The two officials are Susan Dudley, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget; and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
There's even growing realization among Bush's Republican shock troops on the Hill that this "administration's" games are endangering their own powers and prerogatives.
Over in the Intelligence Committee, as noted in yesterday's Midday Open Thread, there was this:
In an interview, Hoekstra, the committee's senior Republican, said he told McConnell that he was disgusted with what he described as the Bush administration's continuing effort to undercut any kind of outside oversight.
"This is part of a systemic problem of the administration, and I said I'm not going to take it anymore," Hoekstra said.
This isn't news to Hoekstra's fellow Republican, Dana Rohrabacher (though you won't find either of them doing anything about it):
"The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has shown toward Congress... is so egregious that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress’ rightful and constitutional duties."
The fact is that this "administration" has stonewalled dozens of investigations into nearly every department and agency within the executive branch. There are more than a dozen investigative committees and subcommittees in the House alone, and almost all of them could tell you stories about being stonewalled across multiple investigations by the Bush gang. In the Senate, the situation may be even worse, committee and floor rules make it even more difficult to issue and enforce subpoenas. Witness what happened to Senator Barbara Boxer's efforts to chase down EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson:
A vote on the issuance of a subpoena for the draft endangerment finding on global warming emissions rejected at the highest levels in the White House was stymied when Republican members boycotted the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works business meeting, preventing a quorum
And many of you will remember that the Senate Judiciary Committee also has a very old outstanding (and unenforced) subpoena out for Karl Rove, for the defiance of which the committee voted to hold him in contempt. But the Senate has never bothered to have a floor vote to make the contempt official. And how could they? Where would they get the 60 votes to shut down a filibuster of such a resolution?
So, does the Miers ruling mean the dam finally breaks, and a new flood of subpoenas previously bottled up by the uncertainty of the situation are now unleashed?
Unlikely, although such a deluge would constitute the first and only real demonstration of just how obstructionist the "administration" has been, across the board and on every issue. There's been no comprehensive accounting of just how many avenues of inquiry into just how many areas of critical importance to the American people have been thwarted by White House intransigence -- an intransigence that the federal courts have now joined in declaring to be without support in law or precedent. But it's still unlikely.
That's because the Congressional leadership has retained fairly tight control over how many subpoenas are issued, and how far investigators should go in pursuit of their inquiries. It's been part of the overall political strategy that had its origins in not giving rise to any kind of panic or fear of political vindictiveness -- which Republicans promised Americans would be the case if Democrats were returned to the majority -- stemming from the elections of 2006, and which has morphed into the overall political strategy of not giving rise to any kind of panic or fear of political vindictiveness that might stem from the upcoming elections of 2008.
Well, that and the fact that there are probably no more than a few weeks left of active session in the 110th Congress, with both houses in recess for the month of August, and the House still aiming at a September 26th adjournment for the year... so that they can come back home and ask for your votes. No doubt so that they may bring some accountability back to Washington.
That's life. And that's politics. The best we can hope for is that our votes buy us a respite from such overwhelming and dire need for oversight into such basic issues of governance such as, "does the executive branch have to obey the law?" Or, "what if they have to, but they just don't?"
We won't likely be getting any actual answers to those questions before we're all asked to forget about them "for the good of the country." Perhaps we'll enjoy it more than we now think just to have relief from having to ask for a few years.
