Comments (43)

Austin Cooper wrote on July 31, 2007 1:48 PM:

Listen to The People?

What do you think we are -- a Democratic form of government, or something?

Code = smile, As In Smile When Your Heart Is...

JMOHR wrote on July 31, 2007 1:54 PM:

Of course Bush supports Gonzo. Gonzo does exactly what Bush wants. We act amazed of the continued support and approval when a Gonzo, Rove, Libby or other Republican official acts against the law, ethics, morality or the constitution. This is what they want. It is the height of stupidity to be supprised.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 1:57 PM:

HEED MURTHA'S EXAMPLE: CUT DOJ BUDGETS TO AWAKEN PRESIDENT AND AG

Until the budget is cut, Gonzalez stays. He's there to rub Congress' nose in it, delay, and make Congress think it has no power.

"Look, see, no budget cuts. Gonzalez is doing his job." Why would he respond to any Congressional supboenas? He has no reason. Nor does anyone else in DoD or OVP, hence VP and Rummy (as a contractor) refuse to answer questions.

Cut the budgets first. Make Gonzalez wake up. If he doesn't wake up, his delays mean there is more time for him to sit around without money.

Every briefing/hearing AG refuses to appear, is another DOJ program cut. Stop threatening. Do it. Cut the funding for OLC, the Small Business Contractors, software upgrades. Everything.

Anna S. wrote on July 31, 2007 2:03 PM:

Democrat's campaign message:

"We are not the Left any longer. We are the mainstream, we are the average Joe. We are your neighbors and your friends and yourselves. 70% of people in the country agree with our policies, half agree that we should do MORE than we presently have. The conservatives can be just that: conservative. They can 'conserve' the status quo of ethics violations, cronyism, bad fiscal policy and bad foreign policy. "

They need to take evidence like this and pound the heck in campaign ads out of the idea that the Democratic ticket is the *moderate* choice in this election. Republicans convinced people of that in years past and won elections on that fallacy. Dems need to reclaim the middle of the aisle, with stats like this as ammo.

TheraP wrote on July 31, 2007 2:05 PM:

Mystery Poster (anon above), you have convinced me!

Yes, the Congress needs to view it's purse as an irrigation system. Do what we ask, let us have oversight, or the dam closes on that irrigation pipe.

And the people, the Fourth Branch, need to stand up and insist on that!

moondancer wrote on July 31, 2007 2:06 PM:

Hey congress- grow a pair and start impeachment procedures- now.
Then put shrub on a allowance. If he's acting up, no money for games and such. When dealing with juvenile behaviour, best to use strict discipline

Slim Pickins wrote on July 31, 2007 2:16 PM:

Anon at 1:37,

I hope your our Congress people read the blogs - as your post at 12:38 that sorta got EPU'd earlier seems like a blueprint for reasserting Constitutional control of our government. A question though - if the funding dries up, will the WH capitulate? Don't you think at this point a government shut-down (and I have no doubt that they would run the impass that far, b/c they have nothing to lose) would hurt the Democrats.

This seems like an excellent plan to get the info though,

"stop waiting for the AG to "respond" and quit waiting for the President to "agree" and don't delay waiting for the court "outcome" to be clear. Cut the budget _now_; that way, all the delays go on the AG's back: His delays means he and the President are _that much longer_ without money."

gcs wrote on July 31, 2007 2:16 PM:

And let's never forget what things look like in Bush's Bizarro World.

If the Congress fails to impeach or remove Gonzo from office, the Bushies will helpfully inform us that means Congress approves of the job he's doing. On the other hand, since the Congress appointed Gonzo to his office in the first place, removing him from office - no matter all the new information that has come to light since - means they're "flip-floppers."

Embrace the right wing insanity.

Chaunce wrote on July 31, 2007 2:23 PM:

C-Span 3 right now: House members announcing resolution to impeach Gonzo.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 2:31 PM:

"if the funding dries up, will the WH capitulate?"

Posted by: Slim Pickins
Date: July 31, 2007 2:16 PM

The President, even if money is cancelled, might illegally transfer funds, as was done with Iran-Contra: That becomes evidence. Time to force his hand now and accelerate his timeline.

1. The Oath

Again, the _oath_ is to compel Members of Congress to do things that they would not _voluntarily_ do; their oath is not to the DNC, President, or GOP, but to one thing: The Constitution. If the Congress refuses to end funding for illegal things -- or things the President will not prove are lawful, as he can be required to do by cutting his budget pending a compliance audit -- then _Members of Congress_ are creating evidence of _malfeasance_ in re their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

2. Polls Aren't Relevant to 5 USC 3331, Oath of Office

Irrelevant: Without money, they'll have to illegally transfer funds (creating more evidence) to support what Congress said "don't fund", just like Iran-Contra. The point is: Don't "fear" or "wait for" or "imagine" what the President _might_ do; force his hand now: Every action he takes is another _hole_ in the Constitution: That isn't a problem: it's evidence. The _real_ Constitution remains in tact.
"Don't you think at this point a government shut-down (and I have no doubt that they would run the impasse that far, b/c they have nothing to lose) would hurt the Democrats."

3. Article 1 Section 9 and Compliance Audits: To Demonstrate Fully Compliance with FISA, 32 CFR 2800, and Data retention

Again, that's backwards: Congress has the power to refuse to provide funding for _illegal_ things. If the Congress, despite the _president's_ refusal to cooperate, cannot end an illegal effort, then we see what we have: A powerless Congress. Again, that's not a problem, but _evidence_ the State AG's can use to prosecute members of Congress, the President, and VP.

4. Congress and President Assent to We the People

We the People, not the President and Ag, are the sovereign power. They work for us. They are in defiance of Our Will: FISA, responses to subpoena, data retention. Who cares about the "DNC vs GOP" benefits or non-benefits: They're both complicit until they put their oath first and use _budget power_ to compel the President and AG to assent to the rule of law. Congress has an abysmal rating: That's something the _DNC and GOP_ have jointly done through malfeasance, inaction, and a refusal to assert all lawful options to defend _The Constitution_.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 2:34 PM:

Posted by: Anna S.
Date: July 31, 2007 2:03 PM

I appreciate the sentiment, however, the issue is _governance_ right _now_ in 2007. No need t talk about the "supboena" that is not backed by budget consequences.

It's one thing to have the "power of supboena" quite another to show one can -- as a party -- put that power to the intent We the People mandated.

DNC needs to stop talking about "the election message," and focuse on _acdtions_ that show they are _doing_ not simply spinning, as the GOP has done.

Molly Ivans wrote on July 31, 2007 2:35 PM:

Raise Hell!!

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 2:43 PM:

Cut the budget _first_, then waste time with "impeachment" and "special prosecutor" and "asking for updates to testimony".

This is backwards:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_072907.pdf

Impose consequences now; when the AG/President delay, that means they're stuck without budget authority _longer_.

Stop waiting with "new timelines and deadline" to do something. Cut the budget now, then wait for the AG and President to commit other illegal acts. They have no other choice: They're stuck.

The Congress needs to get on the same sheet of music: _Either_ chamber can cut the budget to zero, as Murtha did; and both can let the President and AG waste time _without money_. Please urge yoru Member of Congress to heed Murtha's example, cut the budgets for DOJ now, and then "debate" or "wait" for responses, corrections, and information.

Key idea: "Budgets are cut. If you want your money, cooperate, give us the information. Until you cooperate and gives us the information, you aren't getting money. The longer you delay, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General, the longer you will have no money. This is your problem."

Slim Pickins wrote on July 31, 2007 2:44 PM:

2:31 pm - Your posts are both rational and inspirational (qualities that are too often separate in the comments section) - and you write with a clarity and purpose that's outstanding. I see the light - and my Congressional reps shall soon see a letter.

Thanks.

kathleen wrote on July 31, 2007 2:53 PM:

Did Oscar the cat visit the AG in the last 24 hours?

Is that Deepthroat or Rove posting anon on TPM?

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 2:59 PM:

Posted by: Slim Pickins
Date: July 31, 2007 2:44 PM

Great. Glad could be of assistance.

We the People shall prevail, as we have always dowe. There is a way. It's already happening.

Slim Pickins wrote on July 31, 2007 3:01 PM:

"Deepthroat or Rove"

I don't see a lot of choice. Basically, you follow anon's plan to defund or you try to battle it out in the courts (with DOJ enforcement) and probably allow them to run the clock out.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 3:02 PM:

Posted by: Slim Pickins
Date: July 31, 2007 2:44 PM

Please consider Faxing. The mail is delayed. E-mails also get deleted.

Faxes are physical things they have to look at; and if you put your name on the Fax with an address, it gets entered into the "Congressional Correspond" log.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 3:04 PM:

Posted by: Slim Pickins
Date: July 31, 2007 3:01 PM

Don't forget, there are also the State AGs: It's not an "all or nothing" but there are multiple options. They key is to keep at it.

Let the AG battle in both Federal Court with Congress, and at the State level in other courts; while at the same time _defunding_ his legal staff he needs to litigate.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 3:07 PM:

Ralph Nader's 2000 run for the WHite House- the gift that just keeps on giving. Thanks Again RALPH and all those who voted for you.

sherlock wrote on July 31, 2007 3:08 PM:

In this case, the polls shouldn't matter. Who cares if 49% of republicans feel that Congress has the "right" to investigate Gonzales. It is Congress's "duty" to investigate Gonzales and to "act" when there has been wrongdoing. All the polls do is tell us how effective the media is at "educating" the public.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of Congress dipping their collective toes in the water to see if it is politically safe to make a move one way or the other. Giving Gonzales time to correct his "misstatements" is generous to say the least and appears to be nothing more than a political move to give the administration some wiggle room. If the letter's message turns out to be nothing more than an attempt to jump through fine legal loop holes while providing non-answers based on national security issues and executive privilege, then Congress has the right, duty and obligation to make a freaking move on Gonzales no matter what the polls say. Anything less is unacceptable.

Central Square wrote on July 31, 2007 3:11 PM:

How did we get here? Ah yes..Ralph Nader 2000, the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks again RALPH and all those knuckleheads who voted for you. No difference between the parties? That's rich.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 3:18 PM:

[ It is Congress's "duty" to investigate Gonzales and to "act" when there has been wrongdoing. ]

Posted by: sherlock
Date: July 31, 2007 3:08 PM

Right: 5 USC 3331, oath of office. Malfeasance. Grand Jury's don't look at AP Polls: They look at two things: [a] reality; and [b] the law.

Time for the DNC to accept the Grand Jury isn't interested in their "views on popularity". This President has _divided_ the US Constitution -- illegally -- and this Congress refsues to do anything about it.

Pelosi's excuses need to be taken for what they are: Evidence of alleged 5 USC 3331 oath of office violations; and grounds for the Grand Jury to indict her for failing to assert her oath of office.

Either the President is impeached; or he is prosecuted: Either at the Fedarel or State level. Without action on impeachment, prosecution, or State AG, the US government -- Members of Congress incluced -- have breached their oath to ensure that the States are guaranteed a republican form of government: One that includes an _enforcement_ mechanism.

Without budget cuts, time for the Grand Jury to target Pelosi and the Members of Congress for 5 USC 3331 violations.

Slippery Slope wrote on July 31, 2007 3:30 PM:

C-Span 3 right now: House members announcing resolution to impeach Gonzo.
Posted by: Chaunce
Date: July 31, 2007 2:23 PM
***********************************************

You can see the news conference of Rep Inslee (D-Washington), Chandler (D-Kentucky) and Braley (D-Iowa) where they announce the introduction of House resolution calling for the impeachment of AG Gonzalez. Go to c-span.org and look under the RECENT PROGRAMS section.

Contact your representatives today to show your support for this resolution.

two beers wrote on July 31, 2007 3:41 PM:

Central Square, Nader is a symptom, not the cause, of the Republican Culture of Corruption. I voted for Gore, and obviously he would have been a decent president. But if Gore had run as a REAL Democrat, and not as a DNC/Lieberman/Blue Dog centrist triangulating sell-out, he would have obviated most support for Nader. But even then, the fix was in, and Bush was going to become preznit come hell or high-water...

Rather than blaming our current ills on progressives who disdain the rightward shift of the Democratic Party, how about putting the blame for the ascendancy of the Gang Of Perverts on the enabling Democratic battered wives who STILL refuse to stand up to for core democratic values.

And, if Nancy doesn't sh*t and get off the impeachment pot, she will open the door to yet ANOTHER run from the left to splinter the Democrats.

Play it safe, Nancy, and you doom us all.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 3:44 PM:

Posted by: Slippery Slope
Date: July 31, 2007 3:30 PM

Pending the investigation results, the DOJ budgets need to be frozen. AG appears to have referred to other things, but hopes Congress believes it is something else.

Until this is resolved, AG needs his funding cut. The longer the AG waits to cooperate with the inquiry, the longer the AG are without budget.

Even if the Congress refuses to act on this impeachment, and does not investigate, or not appoint a special counsel, the public will see whether Congress is putting real power behind its FISA requirements: A decision to cut funding _until_ compliance is proven/shown. One for the AG to demonstrate; nor for the COngress to "wait around" pending a "review."

TheraP wrote on July 31, 2007 4:20 PM:

1. If 70% want gonzo-lies investigated, then turn off the irrigation spigots till the executive branch hands over anything and everything needed for that investigation to occur!

2. For anything else where an investigation is needed, point out that there's no way subpoenas can be enforced, since DoJ isn't doing its job - and connect THAT to gonzo-lies - so you have the 70% behind that too!

3. Logic is one thing. And I am in total agreement with "Anon" on that. But emotion is also important. So, whenever you turn off that spigot for something else, refer it back to the people that are standing in the way of oversight being done. Grab onto emotion - because we need the 4th Branch - and many are motivated by emotion.

4. Three cheers for Anon! (And keep your advice and hopeful comments coming.)

5. Participate in our project (click my name) and see blog post: "The better to eat you, my dear" - to compile and analyze the posts of "Anon" for the purpose of Constitutional Compliance by all branches of government! We will open up more blog posts as necessary.

Slim Pickings: now that you're on board with this, please assist! Thanks.

drational wrote on July 31, 2007 4:21 PM:

Isn't funding provided by fiscal year? Barring some complex new legislation, how do you defund just the OAG or other specific entity quickly and make sure it can be restored quickly if the exec complies? This seems a tactic that will not be readily flexible. Also is there flexible soft money that can be diverted from other accounts to the OAG at the president's discretion?
This tactic seems oversimplified and needs details/caveats/cost-benefit analysis. It needs to be gamed.

sherlock wrote on July 31, 2007 4:24 PM:

[Time for the DNC to accept the Grand Jury isn't interested in their "views on popularity". This President has _divided_ the US Constitution -- illegally -- and this Congress refsues to do anything about it.]

To me, this isn't about the DNC or even the RNC. All members of Congress have a duty to uphold their oath of office and to defend the Constitution, not to defend their respective parties. Regardless of what the polls or media tells me, I'll take real leadership no matter what side of the aisle they are on.

In my opinion, the President hasn't "divided the Constitution", he has divided the American public. This allows him to "ignore the Constitution" and interpret it to suit his needs since a divided country will provide him with defenders no matter how off base he goes.

Sadly, this whole affair (and many others) is being portrayed as a childish game of "Gotcha". People instinctively defend the party they affiliate with rather than analyzing the underlying issues. We (and the media) have to stop portraying issues as the left winning this or the right winning that. I fear that Gonzales's letter (not that he actually wrote it) will be used as an out for the right wingers in their public opinion war. This just feeds the animosity and keeps us divided. The real loser is the concept of an impartial rule of law and thereby, the American people as a whole.

johnnydoughey wrote on July 31, 2007 4:40 PM:

Apparently the letter is being delayed because, as we all are aware, replying honestly takes a lot of thought, which is time consuming...

Slippery Slope wrote on July 31, 2007 4:41 PM:

Posted by:
Date: July 31, 2007 3:44 PM
***********************************
Agreed.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the introduction of funding cuts (or zeroing of line items in a budget bill) is the same process as the introduction of impeachment proceedings.

BOTH can and should proceed in parallel.

There seems to be a critical mass of evidences pointing to Malfeasance. It is NOW time to act.

To that issue, I was disappointed that during the Inlsee news conference a someone asked when the resolution was going to be introduced. Inslee’s initial response was jokingly tomorrow morning at 10 AM, but then moved to a vague (paraphrasing here) we are working on other important legislation issues, maybe after August recess. Hardly a bold, take action TODAY because our fundamental liberties, Rule of Law and Constitution are at risk, call to arms answer.

AND,

Posted by: two beers
Date: July 31, 2007 3:41 PM
*********************************
First – cheers,

But more seriously to your comment, “And, if Nancy doesn't sh*t and get off the impeachment pot, she will open the door to yet ANOTHER run from the left to splinter the Democrats.”

I couldn’t agree more.

You can see the likes of Foux News doing their part to further polarize the Democrats. Take, for example, the likes of Bill_O bashing the Yearly KOS convention and the Democratic candidates’ participation. This seems to server two porposes: 1) it activates the right wing bases, and, more importantly to your point, 2) it keeps the Democratic candidates’ mindfull of not going too far left. Take also Cheney’s weighing in on H. Clinton’s Pentagon letter just aired on CNN with Wolfie. Cheney of course doesn’t think Clinton should be pressing for Iraq withdrawl plans. These seem to be part of a Rovian divide and concur approach.

So… A question I have is; How do we exert continued pressure to move forward on immediate impeachment, contempt of Congress, Grand Jury indictments and other prosecutions while NOT helping those who might wish to “splinter the Democrats”? It would seem even my critical comments above about the lack of urgancy in Inslee’s may invite critisism.

Anna S. wrote on July 31, 2007 4:59 PM:

Anonymous @ 2:34 and 2:43:

Budget cuts don't happen in a vacuum, and they don't happen as quickly as you seem to think. They happen in a political arena full of talking points, where such actions have consequences (beyond upping the pressure on Bushco to play ball). The House has already voted on its 2008 Fiscal Year Appropriations bills (Defense excepted; note how it's the bill Murtha wants to fight over that's being delayed), and the Senate versions of those bills have already passed committee (again, Defense excepted). Here's a site to track the progress of appropriations bills, via Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app08.html

The 'defunding' that Murtha proposed is an amendment to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. That amendment hasn't passed yet, and the office that he 'defunded' still has money through the end of the 07 fiscal year, regardless of whether the bill passes. Similarly, even if both houses of Congress tomorrow proposed amendments to defund selected portions of the DoJ and WH, those amendments wouldn't actually remove funds until the 07 fiscal year expired. And that's of course supposing that those amendments made it into the final version of an appropriations bill (with the narrow Senate majority, that's a far cry from a foregone conclusion). Defunding is a political firestorm waiting to happen (just wait until the MSM trumpets 'Dems don't want Justice, defund Justice Department' across every headline in the States), and isn't terribly expedient, because it will engender endless debate in the Senate that will distract from the other major issues at hand: ending Iraq, passing ethical reforms, etc. It's leverage, but it's leverage with potentially large downsides. If he bills don't pass because of Senate GOP blocks, and the MSM gets a chance to beat the 'dems hate justice' drum, that's a potentially large impact on the 08 elections with no gain to show for it.

I agree that defunding select portions of the DoJ and WH (Murtha only actually defunded one rather unimportant office of the DoD, and most people agree that that office was far from the only one obstructing Congressional inquiries) is a threat that should certainly be on the table, but it isn't the panacea that will end all obstruction troubles. It also isn't as expedient as you seem to think: there is no 'defund first', when the appropriations bills aren't slated for final votes before late August (and that's under the assumption that there are no major holdups. Defunding the WH would almost certainly cause holdups). Dems can consider it as a solution, but it's not the only one, and in the meantime inquiries, debates, special prosecutors, etc. are all other non-exclusive options that should also be explored.

Andrea Mitchell wrote on July 31, 2007 5:19 PM:

The latest poll shows that most Americans don't want Gonzalez investigated.

sherlock wrote on July 31, 2007 6:29 PM:

[The latest poll shows that most Americans don't want Gonzalez investigated.]
Posted by: Andrea Mitchell

Haha... nice one Andrea Mitchell. Don't you have a big Washington party to go to tonight? I hear Scooter will be attending!

WTF wrote on July 31, 2007 7:02 PM:

I must have missed it, but whatever happened to the big announcement from Arlen Spector today regarding the 18 hour deadline for the Whitehouse explanations regarding Gonzo's testimony. Where is it?

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 8:22 PM:

As stated, 58% have no confidence in Gonzales. This suggests 42% do have confidence, indicating 4 in 10 rather than 1 in 4 have confidence in Gonzales. Was the question phrased to include a third or fourth option (e.g., no opinion, unsure).

Sara wrote on July 31, 2007 8:27 PM:

"President Bush has confidence in his Attorney General. But only one in four Americans who follow Gonzales' exploits these days would agree, according to a recent poll by SurveyUSA. The survey, which was limited to individuals who say they've followed recent news about the Justice Department, found that 58% of those polled have no confidence in Gonzales."

If 58% have no confidence, doesn't this suggest that 42% do have confidence, which means 4 in 10 have confidence rather than 1 in four?

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 31, 2007 8:29 PM:

Have you ever heard of a gang not supporting it's members when one faces charges?

anita drink wrote on August 1, 2007 9:00 AM:

WHERE IS IT????

cemmcs wrote on August 1, 2007 4:16 PM:

I think a jury in a fair trial would probably find him guilty of perjury.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 10:36 PM:

You must all realize that I am just a guide on this little voyage. You can choose to follow my lead, perhaps even take direction and run with it or stay behind and feel safe sitting still. I feel it is worth the risks, especially if they are spread out among many.

Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 10:56 PM:

Posted by: Anna S.
Date: July 31, 2007 4:59 PM

Anna,

Thank you for your work. Something I read seemed to not ring true with what I was hearing. I read the following, and thought I would raise this with you -- perhaps you already knew this, or we are talking about two difference things:

[ "The 'defunding' that Murtha proposed is an amendment to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. That amendment hasn't passed yet' ]

Perhaps, I am missing something: Are we sure that was an "amendment", not a direct markup? I thought the whole point of Murtha's "committee markup" was that it was done _in_ committee, _without_ a markup, and _not_ requiring an Amendment.

In my view, a "markup" means that _before_ the bill leaves the committee, the Chiar has adjusted a budget, and that budget is then in final form for debate. _After_ markups, amendments are added; before markups, those dollars are still moving around.

Maybe someone can clarify whether the markup was in the Committee; and whether Murtha, on his own, slashed the DoD Congressional Liaison Budget. Not saying you're wrong; just we may be talking about two different things.

Here's the link:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Murtha_says_Pentagon_frustrates_Congressional_oversight_0727.html

Here's the key language suggesting Murtha did what I suspected: Slashed the budget with a markup; and is leaving the GOP-President with the _problem_ with passing the bill. ["The Pentagon's Maka would not comment on whether the Defense Department would seek to _restore_ Legislative Affairs' budget with an _amendment_ during debate on the appropriations bill." ] It appears DoD, not Murtha has to pass the amendment.

- - - - - -

For the reasons cited above, and the way the Raw Article was written referencing the DOD planned Amendment to "restore" funding, I respectfully disagree with this statement [ ''' "The 'defunding' that Murtha proposed is an amendment to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. That amendment hasn't passed yet' '''] It is my view, that the "defunding" is _firm_; was _not_ an Amendment; and the _DoD, President, GOP_, not Murth, have the job of passing an Amendment.

Relevance: Let's suppose "my version" of events is true: That Murtha, did, in fact, "mark up the bill" and that bill does contain zeroes or things that are _below_ what the President's budget says he needs, as he submitted. If that is true, then let's consider a few things:

A. Why aren't more Members of Congress doing this;
B. What is the explanation why the "unknown" aspects of the FISA-violations are not also cut in a like manner
C. What's the rush in Pelosi saying, "She can't get a bill" when the opposite appears true: That she could, if she wanted, support Murtha in saying, "We Will not support Iraq-ground force operations after X-date; and I'm marking up the bill -- before it leaves committee -- to reflect that _decision_?

In my view, _because_ Murtha has shown that he _can_ markup a bill _without_ an Amendment, the DNC appears to be saying it's "stuck" with the GOP bill; when in fact, it is the opposite: The GOP is stuck with the House Bill _unless_ the GOP can pass an Amendment to add dd money back. In that spirit, it is my view that the DNC is talking out of both sides of its mouth: Its blaming the GOP for "blocking" a bill in the House; but not doing the opposite: Zeroing out funds in the Senate Committee, then forcing the GOP to -- _with an Amendment_ -- to add money back.

Even if the GOP "blocks" this "marked up bill", the President still gets no Bill; and if the President vetoes this marked up bill, or there is no Amendment to add money back, the President still gets nothing.

Which turns us back to 2001-2006 when the DNC was the minority; and the lesson learned from the Senators Stevens position on the Ethics Bill: The rules of the Senate say that any Senator may object _anonymous_ for any reason to hold up a bill. My question: Given this rule, why did the DNC Senators 2001-2006 not use this option to _block_ the Patriot Act, FISA bill, MCA, Habeas Destruction,a and other things that they say they were "threatened with the nuclear options. That makes no sense: Because if, in fact, the GOP -- today, as the minority -- is able to block things, block bills, and block conferences, and stop bills with a Single Senator, I'm wondering: What happened 2001-2006 with the DNC? I can think of only one answer: The DNC was playing victim, and not asserting all lawful options. For. A. Reason: Fear, complicity, or a decision to go along privately with something they would publicly opposite, run on, and win the election. That, in my view, is why Congress has a problem: It hasn't changed -- DNC is still playing the complicity game; and still not blocking bills as it did 2001-2006: Its just changed the excuse from "the GOP Majority" to "the GOP minority" as the "reason" why the DNC cannot get "their way." Hogwash: The DNC could have gotten "their way" had they 2001-2006 done what the GOP is doing today.

- - - - - - -
Thank you for your time, I look forward to your comments.

penelope pumpkin wrote on December 22, 2007 5:30 AM:

nia52l6bfzix1 penelope pumpkin penelope pumpkin