The Perfect Script

David Horsey's March 8th column is actually a continuation of his March 7th:  he wasn't quite finished with the subject.  The two, read together with their cartoons, provide a really interesting look into the way the man's mind works.  Here's a really fun part from the later column:

In my mind, it’s easy to visualize the film version of the dinner. Low lights casting a golden glow on shadowy faces as the camera moves along the table: Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator with his boyish face sinking into jowls; Saxby Chambliss, the beady-eyed, white-haired Georgian looking slightly appalled to be dining with a Kenya-born socialist; Tom Coburn, with his spiky hair, boxer’s nose and Oklahoma common sense that keeps him from pandering to the lunatic fringe of his party; all the other senators sitting tense and alert as they look toward their host. Obama would have to be seated at the head of the table with John McCain, the man he defeated for the presidency, uncomfortably placed at his right. That dramatic juxtaposition would be impossible to resist – unless McCain were in the farthest seat at the other end of the long table, still seething over his lost place in history.

Just add the expository, rapid-fire Aaron Sorkin dialogue and you'd have an instant HBO hit. ...

To be completely candid about my creative process, I should mention I had one other dinner-related cartoon in mind – a Last Supper scene with Obama at the center in Jesus’ seat, flanked by the 12 senators. Obama would say, “One of you will betray me,” and one of the senators would reply, “Only one of us?!”

The whole idea of the President taking twelve senators out to dinner on his own dime is a bit strange, although the idea of a president engaging in a charm offensive I guess isn't all that unusual.  I'm just used to the LBJ model:  twist the arm until it threatens to break.  What is unusual is the careful placement of this dinner in every major and minor news outlet.  No wonder David Horsey can't let the whole story go.  There's so much more to think about.

In any event, I guess we'll discover this week whether it was a useful tool for the president, or whether he's been stiffed once again. We might even get that Last Supper cartoon.

Meanwhile ...

The general feel-good bipartisan response to the assassination of Osama bin Laden is apparently only for the consumption of the rubes. Back in the House, the GOP has been busy undercutting women's reproductive rights during, of all things, budget considerations.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a sweeping antiabortion package to further distance federal funds from the procedure by solidifying existing measures and imposing new ones. ...

The House bill would permanently place into law current policies prohibiting federal money from paying for abortions through Medicaid and some other federal programs. The policies, primarily outlined in the decades-old measure known as the Hyde Amendment, must be periodically renewed.

But the bill also goes further to eliminate what supporters say are indirect federal subsidies for abortion providers.

Under the measure, businesses that offer health insurance policies covering abortion could not recoup tax credits under the new healthcare law. In addition, individuals could not deduct the cost of an abortion when itemizing health expenses on their taxes, nor could they use a tax-exempt savings account to pay for an abortion.

Playing to their basest base as the 2012 elections loom, Republicans justify the unjustifiable with the usual tortured logic:

As Democrats sought to portray these new provisions as part of an extreme social agenda, many Republicans argued that the measure merely reflects the public's will. Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), the bill's sponsor and chief advocate, said he hoped the measures would limit access to abortion.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that ending all public funding for abortion saves lives," said Smith, a leading congressional abortion opponent. "When public funding and facilitation isn't available for abortion, children have a greater chance for survival."

Ah, yes: the rights of the preborn.

Of course, once those children are born, the party stalwarts lose all interest, as evidenced by the cuts to the safety nets which allow them to grow up strong and healthy with a shot at a 21st Century education. And their mothers? Well, they need to be punished for their sluttish ruttings.

Monsters.

Interesting ... And Welcome News

The biggest assault on the Bill of Rights in my memory came with the Patriot Act in its several iterations. Passed by the security uber alles folks who also brought us the Iraq War, the Patriot Act authorized the US government to spy on its citizens with no real oversight. Key provisions are due to expire shortly, and the push is on in the Republican-led House to extend those provision indefinitely.

Some members of the 112th Congress are objecting to such extensions, and I was both surprised and pleased at where the opposition is coming from.

But as the Republican-led House prepares to vote Tuesday for a short-term extension of provisions expiring at the end of this month, some rank-and-file Republicans are signaling they will resist efforts later this year to make the law permanent.

"There need to be sunsets on the bill after that in order to have adequate accountability and oversight," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). "Until sunsets come up, it is often difficult to get the answers we need to do necessary oversight to avoid abuses." [Emphasis added]

Republicans?

Yes, especially those affiliated with or intimidated by the Tea Party. If you stop to think about it, that stance actually makes sense. It is consistent with the Tea Partiers' belief that the federal government is too intrusive in the lives of its citizens. When it comes to essentially warrantless surveillance, I have to agree with them.

Although I would have preferred they go all the way and repeal the Patriot Act entirely, at least it's a start, and a welcome one.

This is bipartisanship I can live with.

This Is How It's Done

Every once in a while I come upon an opinion piece which tackles an issue without trying to be nice and which uses the right language and rhetoric to frame and discuss the issue. This one by Michael Brune (executive director of the Sierra Club) falls into this category of superlative columns.

...for a feel-good story, it's hard to top what's happened since: Federal investment helped General Motors get back on its feet and return to profitability, and GM has come out with a game-changing new car, the plug-in hybrid electric Chevy Volt. Motor Trend magazine named the Volt its 2011 Car of the Year. GM is investing $163 million in three plants (including one in hard-hit Flint, Mich.,) to help produce the car and is hiring 1,000 engineers to continue work on the Volt and develop other electric vehicles that will cut America's dependence on oil.

Looks like a win-win-win situation, right? Well, some people didn't think so and Mr. Brune nails the Scrooges in a strategic spot:

Conservative columnist George Will for one: He sees it as an example of "meretricious accounting and deceptive marketing … foist[ing] state capitalism on an appalled country."

Radio host Rush Limbaugh derides the Volt as " Obama's new car," and labels it part of the electric car industry's "century-long history of failure."

And it's not just the loony pundits that decried one potential success story for the United States. Whether the subject is electric cars, or windmill and solar energy generation, a lot of Republicans feel government assistance for clean technology is just a boondoggle, a waste of precious tax dollars, and (most importantly) tampering with the sacred free market, dominated, of course, by the huge oil companies, sponsors and owners of the Republican Party.

It wasn't so long ago that innovation and industrial know-how were a source of bipartisan pride, an all-American value. Then President Obama made clean-energy jobs and technology centerpieces of his new administration, and suddenly a swath of the Republican Party concluded that saving energy and supporting the growth of green industries were indications of incipient socialism.

Meanwhile, of course, other nations, including China, are investing heavily in clean technology because they realize not only is that necessary to keep the world from choking to death but also that the days of cheap and accessible oil are gone.

Here is where Mr. Brune pulls out all the stops in framing the issue the way the Democrats should but haven't:

Replacing dirty energy sources with solar and wind will rebuild America's manufacturing base and improve our economic competitiveness. Clean energy will cut air and water pollution, and help us to stabilize our climate. Energy independence is both patriotic and principled, and should be bipartisan once again. I have greater faith than ever in America's ability to forge a clean-energy future — and more cause than ever to wonder what Limbaugh is smoking in that cigar of his.

Why, yes. Yes, I think that gets it.

Senate Sausage

Apparently the "silly season," also known as "campaign time," has hit. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who's running for re-election himself, has discovered that time is running out on the 111th Congress and very little has been accomplished that will favorably affect the vast majority of voters. Health care reform is currently on the back burner, awaiting the president's summit meeting, so Sen. Reid turned to the jobs bill we've been waiting for and he pulled out a victory of sorts.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Senate Democrats leaped a key hurdle toward passing a scaled-down jobs bill Monday, gaining support from several Republicans -- including the newest GOP senator, Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

That's right! Sen. Reid cobbled together a coalition of sorts to cut off a filibuster on the first of what the Majority Leader said will be a series of bills to address the joblessness issue. Of course, it probably helped that some Republicans are also facing re-election during a period when voters of all stripes have made it clear how disgusted they are with the Congress as a whole, and the Senate in particular. Here's the breakdown, one with a little twist at the end:

Monday's vote was widely viewed as a test of whether the Senate could pass any significant legislation after Democrats lost their filibuster-proof 60-vote majority with Brown's election. The chamber has been gridlocked by party-line squabbling for the better part of a year, with virtually every bill requiring a 60-vote supermajority.

In addition to Brown, Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, Missouri's Christopher S. Bond and Ohio's George V. Voinovich voted to cut off debate on the jobs legislation, which is likely to pass when it comes to a vote later this week. ...

Democrats needed two GOP votes to ward off a filibuster because Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is undergoing treatment for stomach cancer. They ended up with five, but lost one of their own: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska sided with the GOP. [Emphasis added]

The bill itself is thin soup, and by itself will probably accomplish very little in terms of any kind of mass hiring. It is, however, a start. If Sen. Reid fulfills his promise of more such bills in incremental fashion, we might actually see something decent come out of this Congress before November.

Here's a brief summary of the bill:

Along with a Social Security tax break to encourage businesses to hire workers, the $15-billion package would replenish the depleted Highway Trust Fund, which uses gasoline taxes to repair interstate roads; expand the Build America Bonds program, which helps state and local governments fund infrastructure projects; and allow small businesses to write off large equipment purchases immediately rather than depreciating them over several years.

It's nowhere near the more comprehensive bill passed by the House, but it's enough to show some willingness to get something done and should pass quickly. Then Sen. Reid will introduce the next bill, one that adds a little substance to the broth. Why this couldn't happen earlier as part of the original stimulus package is still a mystery. I guess the threat of elections have more consequences than actual elections.

We'll see.

Elections Matter

I will say this for Republicans: they may not have any fresh ideas to offer as alternatives to the proposals offered by Democrats, but they sure can muster a united front opposed to those proposals. The same is true when it comes to President Obama's nominations to key positions in his administration. The most recent example came with the nomination of Elena Kagan as Solicitor General.

The "center left" editorial board of the Los Angeles Times did a pretty good job of pointing out the GOP's obstructionism in an editorial published in today's edition.

In 2006, during hearings on President Bush's nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reminded Democrats inclined to oppose Alito that "elections matter." Apparently Graham's wisdom was lost on 31 of his fellow Republicans who voted against President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School, to serve as U.S. solicitor general, the government's chief courtroom advocate. (Graham himself didn't vote.)

That Kagan was confirmed anyway doesn't make the partisan vote against her any less outrageous or hypocritical. The opposition of senators who should know better, such as Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), augurs ominously for bipartisan consideration of any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court. Apparently Senate Republicans are determined to continue the tiresome tit-for-tat between the parties that has bedeviled the confirmation process for judicial nominees at least since the Clinton administration.

What the editorial implies, although doesn't state explicitly, is that one reason Ms. Kagan faced such ludicrous opposition (come on, the woman is Dean of the Harvard Law School!) is that she is considered the front runner as a nominee for the next US Supreme Court opening. That's why the administration's "top lawyer" was grilled so extensively by Republicans on such issues as the death penalty and eminent domain. They were simply issuing a warning to the President of what he could expect should Ms. Kagan be nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, should she retire.

The editorial concludes with a warning to the GOP that such a show of pure partisanship might move President Obama away from the "bipartisanship" he appears to desire so strongly and that he might finally decide that trying to confer with the opposition on nominations and key programs is a useless waste of time and energy.

We should be so lucky.

This Time They're Right

Ruth's response to the selection of Michael Steele to lead the RNC was right on the mark. She saw it as a typical Republican move. When Hillary Clinton almost succeeded in her drive for the Democratic presidential nomination, the GOP forced John McCain to select Sarah Palin as his running mate. When Barack Obama won the election, the GOP found a presentable African American to head their party. Both decisions give new meaning to the term "reactionary."

An editorial in today's Los Angeles Times fills out the analysis further, suggesting that Mr. Steele isn't the one who will be the guiding force for his party. A talk show host will.

Hurting and in disarray after a devastating election -- their second in a row -- that put a Democrat in the White House and widened the opposing party's control of Congress, Republicans can now take solace in the fact that they seem to have chosen a strong figure to lead them. We refer, of course, to talk-radio rabble-rouser Rush Limbaugh ... oh, and there's also Michael Steele.

Steele, elected last week as chairman of the Republican Party, declared in his acceptance speech that it was "time for something completely different." It's hard to tell what he meant, other than that he is a different color -- Steele is the first African American to lead the Republicans. Otherwise, he's a middle-of-the-road fiscal and social conservative who hews very closely to the official party line on most issues. ...

And that's where Limbaugh comes in. Proudly intolerant, rigidly doctrinaire, he tells many in the GOP base exactly what they want to hear, and with a weekly audience of at least 13.5 million, he has clout enjoyed by few politicians. A party that takes its marching orders from the likes of Limbaugh won't recover from its malaise any time soon. The GOP's flirtation with moderates like McCain is clearly over, at least for the moment, and most likely we'll see a return to the conservative tenets that propelled Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to victory. That would likely solidify the party's base and clarify its core values, but it's a risky course amid changing political demographics: Young people and minorities, especially Latinos, make up a far more significant piece of the electorate today than in Reagan's years. Along with a new messenger, the GOP might consider a new message.

In other words, the GOP continues to stake its future on its past, a past that just wasn't all that fruitful, even if it did make some people feel good. The selection of a new front man isn't going to make one bit of difference, especially if the Obama administration makes any kind of dent in the economic disaster it inherited from that past.

The drive to irrelevancy continues, and even looks to be picking up speed. I am just vindictive enough to be smiling and nodding.

Oh, and editorial board? You got it right this time.

The Germans Get It ...

...but I'm not sure President Obama does.

What amazes and profoundly annoys me is President Barack Obama's insistence on operating under some pie-in-the-sky sense of "bipartisanship" (whatever in the hell that is). He frequently seems to forget that in November, the American electorate resoundingly rejected the principles of the Republican Party as they were manifested the past eight years. He got elected because he promised change, something new, something that was based on the welfare of the country as a whole, rather than the welfare of the have-mores. His handling of the stimulus package certainly doesn't give much evidence that he understands that.

Everything we've seen the last two weeks makes it clear that the GOP, itself in profound disarray, is reduced to hoping that the Obama administration fails, fails miserably, and fails quickly. Republicans have no intention of cooperating with a Democratic program to get the nation back on its feet economically, diplomatically, or morally. They want the red meat of failure, and they will do everything in their power to facilitate that failure. That is their only hope for a return to relevance, especially since they have made it clear that they don't have a clue how to undue the havoc they, with their boy king, have wreaked the past eight (and more) years. Yet President Obama continues to kowtow to them, forcing off the agenda certain portions of the stimulus plan because it offended the sensibilities of the GOP.

I don't get it. Neither does the rest of the world, if this article in Germany's Die Zeit is any indication.

...In order to gain support for his $820 billion economic rescue plan and to win over as many conservative congressional representatives as possible, Barack Obama spent days flattering and beguiling Republicans. On the evening before his inauguration, he threw a banquet for his former opponent, John McCain. He invited well-known conservatives to the White House during the first week of his administration. He sent his closest economic advisors as well as his chief of staff on promotional tours and he visited Congress personally to exchange views with selected Republican senators and representatives.

But flattery got him nowhere. Not a single Republican voted in favor of his economic plan. Even 11 Democrats deserted him. The fact that the bill passed 244 to 188 was due solely to the Democrats’ overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives. That wasn’t the way Obama had expected his first dealings with Congress to go. He had promised to bury the political hatchet and put forth new policies designed to garner broad, bipartisan support. But the old battle lines remained in place on Wednesday with Republicans and Democrats apparently implacably opposed to one another.

And why is that?

Obama’s rescue plan is now bringing up moral issues in Republican ranks. Republicans have believed for years that reducing taxes alone would stimulate the economy. The more money individuals and businesses were allowed to hold on to, the more they would spend and invest and the better off they would be. Theoretically. Tax money used to improve infrastructure, to build new roads and repair schools, for early childhood development and health care, to develop alternative energy sources and public transportation was and still is to them an expression of liberal wastefulness and therefore the work of Satan. [Emphasis added]

That is as clear a description of the GOP mindset as I've seen, right down to the religious metaphor. That much is clear to everyone but President Obama and to certain key members of Congress. What those individuals refuse to understand is that the last election made it clear that a huge majority of this nation recognized the failure of Republican principles and rejected them.

This nation will probably forgive Obama and the Democratic Congress for being too bold in their proposals, but we will never forgive them for being too timid, too tentative, too touchy-feely when it comes to the delicate sensibilities of the troglodytes who are still clinging to trickle-down economics even after the global failure of that theory.

Time to face reality, Mr. Obama. And Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid.

As my late father would say, "Time to fish or cut bait." Or, as I am wont to say, "Get outta my way, I got stuff to do."

Our Ms. Brooks: Four Wars Ended

Rosa Brooks' latest column celebrates the fact that President Obama ended four wars in his first week in office: the war on terror, the war on Islam, the war on science and the war on women. Certainly not a bad first week, except I don't think Mr. Obama did end the war on women, not completely, but more on that in a moment. Here's her take:

In his first executive orders, Obama effectively dismantled the elaborate structures that supported the Bush administration's "war on terror." On Jan. 22, he ordered the closure of the Guantanamo prison and a halt to the much-criticized military commission trials. He closed secret CIA prisons, required that the Red Cross have access to detainees and mandated that interrogations of detainees -- whether by the military, the CIA or anyone else -- comply with the rules laid out in the Army Field Manual. ...

The war on Islam is also over. Officially, of course, it never existed. But that's how the "war on terror" looked to many around the world, a misunderstanding fueled by the war in Iraq and the irresponsible rhetoric of many Bush administration officials. ...

Obama also ended the undeclared Bush administration war on science. In his inaugural speech, he promised to "restore science to its rightful place." Reversing years of Bush administration disregard of scientific evidence on global climate change, Obama ordered the Transportation Department to set new fuel-efficiency standards and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to rethink its Bush-era refusal to allow states such as California to impose anti-pollution standards more stringent than federal ones.

The undeclared war on women? Also over. On Jan. 23, Obama reversed the "Mexico City policy," which prohibited recipients of U.S. foreign-assistance funds from providing abortions or even providing information about abortions. Family planning groups worldwide will no longer have to choose between providing honest information and receiving crucial funding.

As Ms. Brooks pointed out, these weren't just metaphorical wars: the policies of the Bush administration had real world consequences. Many people died or were maimed in their prosecution. President Obama's executive actions, taken so early and so quickly was a dramatic repudiation of the Bush war on humanity. But then the second week began, and one of the first things he did was reopen the war on women by pressuring the congressional Democrats to remove family planning funding (i.e., the provision of contraceptive devices such as condoms) from the stimulus bill.

Women in the rest of the world may have a better chance of staying alive, but the women in this country just took a hit. Why? Because the new president wanted bipartisan support for the bill. Trading women's health and security apparently was the price.

Fat lot of good it did: not one Republican in the House voted for the bill. Obama gave women up for nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Look, Mr. Obama, the GOP wants you to fail. They are willing to sacrifice the entire nation just to watch you fall so they can point, laugh, and gain ground for 2010. The only reason some Republicans told Rush Limbaugh to shut up on the failure issue is that they don't want their strategy revealed too early. And don't give us any of the "canny political move" nonsense, the "See, I tried to reach out to the GOP, but they bit my hand rather than shake it." You got snookered.

Who's going to be the next sacrificial lamb in your brilliant strategy? People of color (Voting Rights Act)? The elderly (Social Security)?

I'm sorry, Ms. Brooks, but President Obama didn't end the war on women. He just declared a truce, a truce that lasted about, what, 36 hours?

Yes, I'm disappointed. I'm also furious.

Because They Can

While there are fewer Republicans in the 111th Congress than there were in the 110th, those there have not changed their way of doing business. They continue to obstruct, daring the Democratic majority to try and stop them, and when the Democrats point to the obstructionism, the Republicans howl "Partisanship!"

This week the Senate was about the work of confirming President Obama's various cabinet nominations, none of whom were particularly startling or contentious. That apparently didn't matter. Sen. Cornyn put a hold on Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State for no real reason. That her husband's foundation accepted foreign donations was never a secret. That Ms. Clinton has little if anything to with her husband's foundation was clear. That didn't matter. Sen. Cornyn put the hold on because he could, and he removed it only after it was made clear that it was he who had done so.

Now it's Eric Holder's turn to stand and wait. Arlen Specter and his cronies on the Senate Judiciary Committee have demanded a one week delay of the confirmation vote, according to the NY Times.

Republicans say they need more time to collect information about Mr. Holder’s role in a number of issues during his time at the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton, including Mr. Clinton’s 2001 pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich, and about Mr. Holder’s positions on several major counterterrorism issues.

Seven hours of testimony and reams of written questions and answers should be enough, as Sen. Leahy, the chair of the committee pointed out, but that would deprive the Republicans of their constitutional right to wave their private parts as US Senators (by gawd!), so the new President will have to wait for a key member of his team.

This kind of behavior comes as no real surprise. What Republicans mean by bipartisanship is that when they are out of power, they still get everything they want. We know that, and Congressional Democrats certainly should, at least by this time. That said, it's time for the Congressional Democrats to act like the majority party. The fact is that because of our system, we have partisanship. The people of this country elected more Democrats than Republicans this time around for a reason, something both parties should keep in mind.

Let the little in-the-minority pissant whiners whine, stamp their feet, and delay a vote once or twice, and then get on with the work of the nation. Steamroller the recalcitrant as necessary. That's what the people of this country expect.

Lessons Unlearned

As usual Spocko has a wonderful reflection on the lesson we have learned from history by the criminal characters in this administration. Also as usual, it is masterfully tongue in cheek. I am going to give you readers a small sample of his whole post, recommend you read the whole thing. The subject is letting the crimes of this White House go unpunished.

To attack them now, after we have won, isn't helpful. Why?

Because people learn from their mistakes when they are forgiven and then they stop making them. They don't think that being lenient is a bad thing, especially when it comes to their own "crime" (which many don't even see as a crime). We only need to look at Scooter Libby to see how communing his sentence made him a better citizen who surely won't do something questionable again. His life is over in the public sphere. I don't ever expect him to be out making money by being on TV, writing a book or bragging about his "crime" in speeches to supporters. He knows that would be wrong.

History has shown that when you don't punish people for making a mistake or breaking the law they never make that mistake again. They may know technically that they "got away with it", but morally they realize that they were wrong and understand that the compassion shown comes with the suggestion, "Go and sin no more."

Learn From Ford. Pardon people, it's Good for the Country

Remember after Nixon? We chose to not go after a few people who broke the law. That was the right thing to do because we found out that when you forgive people for their law breaking they leave the public eye, they learn their lesson and never act like that again. I think that Rummy and Cheney are the best example of people who learned from the Nixon Administration the most. They are a prime example of why we shouldn't follow up on people who have done bad things (especially when people did those things thinking they were doing what was right for the country.) Nixon was pardoned and that sent a clear message to Rummy and Cheney not to do what Nixon did. And they didn't! Cheney and Rummy never taped themselves and they never ordered the break in of the Democratic headquarters. The pardon worked.

The mistakes made in allowing criminals who misused public office has resulted in disasters we will be climbing back out of, if we do, for some time to come. Reading Spocko is a treat, but a lesson too, that we must not let this pass.

The maladministration that signaled its intentions by keeping the U.S. out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court should be subject to law, and we cannot avoid that responsibility. It doesn't work out well.

Bringing Us Together

How ironic. The Bush administration has managed to unite Americans about something: how much its emergency bailout plan stinks. Paulson and Bernanke found themselves facing hostile questions from both sides of the aisle. Here's a brief survey from the Sacramento Bee of the California delegation's response to giving Paulson $700 billion without any strings attached.

While the Bush administration is pushing for quick approval of an historic $700 bailout to calm Wall Street, skeptical Republicans and Democrats from California are pushing back, saying Congress must take its time in scrutinizing such a mammoth proposal. ...

Appearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urged Congress to move quickly and "avoid slowing it down with other provisions that are unrelated or don't have broad support." But so far, Democrats are holding firm in their demands, and many Republicans are urging a more methodical approach, as well.

"This is a financially challenging time for America," said Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield. "It's not a time for Washington politics, but instead a time for leadership to protect America's working families and their hard-earned retirement and college savings."

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said the financial crisis "is clear recognition that the party is over for the Bush administration's anything-goes, failed economic policies that have damaged our economy." She said Congress will pass a bill "in a bipartisan manner that will protect the taxpayers' interests" but that the legislation must rein in executive pay, include independent oversight and offer protections for homeowners facing foreclosure. ...

[Sen. Dianne] Feinstein called Paulson's plan "a nonstarter" because it would give him too much authority.

"To ask Congress to pass a $700 billion bill, and hand this to one person with no oversight, I think is not at all prudent," she said. "The Congress should not do that."

She said Dodd's bill "is much better" because it would create an oversight body, mandate regular reports to Congress and limit executive salaries. ...

"We must get to the root of the housing crisis and work to keep people in their homes through refinancing," [Sen. Barbara Boxer] said. "If we don't, housing prices will continue to freefall and we will still be in a mess. In California, we have more foreclosures than any other state --- in August, more than 101,000 Californians received foreclosure notices and more than 33,000 lost their homes." ...

[Republican Rep. John] Doolittle, of Roseville, joined 30 other House Republicans who sent a letter to Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, asking them to stop using federal funds to save private firms.

Now such bipartisan criticism certainly doesn't mean that a really bipartisan bill will be crafted in response, but it does mean that the country and its representatives have had about enough of the boy-who-would-be-emperor's ham-handed approach to governance and give away programs for the rich. It would have been nice if this sudden development of spine when it came to challenging the administration had occurred about six years ago, but at least it finally happened. It's no accident that the development needed a presidential election to engender it, but I guess $700 billion in one lump sum opened a few eyes.

118 days

How Surprising

Apparently the Democrats in Congress still haven't learned anything about how this White House operates. Either that, or they are remarkably good actors. This time they are surprised, nay, shocked! that the White House continues to push a nominee for a senior level Justice Department position after the Senate has refused to confirm several times before. The nominee, Steven G. Bradbury, apparently wrote some legal opinions ("classified", naturally) in support of using torture techniques on detainees. From today's NY Times:

The Justice Department lawyer who wrote a series of classified legal opinions in 2005 authorizing harsh C.I.A. interrogation techniques was renominated by the White House on Wednesday to a senior department post, a move that was seen as a snub to Senate Democrats who have long opposed his appointment. ...

But the earlier nominations stalled in the Senate because of a dispute with the Justice Department over its failure to provide Congress with copies of legal opinions on a variety of terrorism issues. Under Senate rules that place a time limit on nominations, Mr. Bradbury’s earlier nominations expired.

Late last year, Democrats urged the White House to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s name once and for all and find a new candidate for the post after it was disclosed in news reports in October that he was the author of classified memorandums that gave approval to harsh interrogation techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination. [Emphasis added]

Mr. Bradley's nomination has been rejected several times, primarily because the White House has refused Congress's request for copies of those and other legal opinions having to do with "harsh interrogation techniques," the current euphemism for torture. OK, a proper response. But the current Democratic-led Congress should not feign surprise at the White House renomination of Mr. Bradbury. Mr. Bush knows that sooner or later the Democrats will cave and the nominee will be confirmed. He isn't issuing a "snub" to Congress, he is showing his profound disrespect for them.

In the mean time, all of those congresscritters with hurt feelings are scurrying around trying to put together an economic stimulus plan that Mr. Bush will sign. The White House will get what it wants (including making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent), which is not necessarily what the people of America need.

But hey!, it's all good because it's bipartisan!

361 days to go.

There Could Be A Way Out

The country is on a path that has proved before to be a tragic one. We have a dysfunctional presidency, a cretin incapable of intelligent action holds the helm and he has surrounded himself with sycophants. Our military in this case, however, is being destroyed in order to isolate this court of fools further.

What sort of action can stop the tragedy from unrolling? While impeachment of the president and vice-president would be effective, the potential for achieving this is questionable and would consume all of congress' energies that are needed elsewhere to end the maelstrom of destruction the White House has put into play.

The Democrats have control of congress, and are exercising the right of supervision. This is promising, and their scrutiny will help bring control over the areas of government that they can reign in. While they are bringing their power into line over the domestic operations of the out-of-control executive branch, however, the military has been unleashed to operate irresponsibly. The taking of prisoners - and will they meet with rendition? - in a consular Iranian facility has outraged the Middle East again. We have been exhibited to the world at large to recognize no bounds, to flex muscles instead of working within the diplomatic framework established by centuries of long, respectful negotiation across borders. The international community is our playground, and we are the bully.

At home, in the name of war powers, the government is tapping phones, opening mail, arresting anyone it 'deems' a threat in the proclaimed war on terror - which has not been authorized by congress.

The only means to bring a halt to this errant idiocy appears to be the removal of the president and his court, and impeachment is not a good option.

There might be another option.

Since the GOP has the most to lose from two more years of complete mayhem, it would behoove them to make the executives an offer they can't refuse. No horse heads in the bed, keep the horses and ponies safe, too. Why not offer to let the heads of state resign, give them a pass, and yes, a pardon from their war crimes. To save lives of countless thousands of soldiers, and the freedoms we treasure, why not give them that safe pass out of the place where they are wrecking our most treasured rights, the economy for generations to come, and national security while remorselessly killing off the military, as individuals and as an institution?

I don't think anything could be worse than perpetuating the existing, and mounting, catastrophe. Who would succeed? The prospect of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in the presidency is a comforting one, but I am sure that the Democratic party would allow for the vice-president to be replaced by a functional Republican if one can be found, by mutual agreement.

If the GOP were to do such a noble act, of course, it would be likely to regain much of the public esteem and trust it has sacrificed to date. It isn't in the interest of the Democratic party to propose this. However, I would rather see the huge costs of irrational powerhungry executive maladministration ended.

So I propose that the GOP control its own, now. While there's a country to save.

No Bipartisanship

All of a sudden, the Republicans and their friends in the press are calling for an era of bipartisanship. For twelve years the Republicans have controlled Congress and, especially the last six years, have completely shut the Democrats out of the process, yet the word "bipartisanship" was uttered only after the Democrats caved in on major legislation. Now that the tables are turned, suddenly the word is being bandied around as if it were part of the everyday vocabulary of the people in power. Today's editorial in the NY Times is a prime example of this self-serving hypocrisy.

For years, bipartisanship has been the missing ingredient in the sour stew of Washington. It was lacking during the Democrats’ long House reign that ended in 1994. But during the last 12 years, the Republicans virtually eliminated Democratic participation. Chronically invoked by President Bush, this political ideal has been reduced to rhetorical ashes.

Of necessity, perhaps, the new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is making a considerable show of promising to reach across the aisle. In the House, Ms. Pelosi promises bipartisanship will be in evidence after the Democrats get past their opening agenda. That is like saying the checks and balances are in the mail. If Democratic candidates were smart enough during the campaign to realize that the voters demand bipartisanship, they should be quick enough to try it from the start.

Oh, please!

The voters didn't vote for bipartisanship, they voted for candidates who promised to clean up the mess the Republicans have made. For the last six years, the Republicans in Congress have dodged their responsibilities for oversight over the executive branch which has led to an illegal war, billions of dollars given away to the wealthiest campaign donors (individuals and corporations alike), the shredding of our civil liberties, and a federal deficit that the next three generations will be saddled with. Many have been personally enriched by their corrupt relationships with K Street and its clients, but it took federal indictments to root the crooks out.

What the voters made clear in November was that they wanted a Congress that would get things done, things that were in the best interest of the nation and not just in the best interests of the multinational corporations. The Democrats have set out an agenda which promises just that. If the Republicans want to get on board, fine. If not, they should get out of the way and quit the unseemly whining.

It's not a matter of partisanship or even bipartisanship: its a matter of what's best for the country. There should be no compromise on that, no quarter given.

Cheap Talk

The people who brought us the Clean Air Act have done it again. The time the language warp is the term "bipartisanship." It's what the President wants now that he's lost the edge in Congress. Mr. Bush wants so much for us to get along, that he's promised to work with the Congress in getting the nation's business done. He wants it so much that he's renominated six people for the federal appeals courts that the Democrats previously told him were not acceptable. From the NY Times:

White House officials said Wednesday that President Bush would renominate six of his earlier choices to sit on the federal appeals court, leaving Democratic senators and other analysts to ponder what message he is sending.

...At least four of the nominations have been declared dead on arrival in the Senate by Democrats who have consistently opposed them as unacceptable. All six nominations will remain before the Senate through the lame-duck session of Congress and then will expire.

What's the big deal? A president is entitled to nominate federal judges, it says so right in the Constitution, where it also says that the Senate has the job of advising and consenting on those nominations. Well, let's be charitable and note that perhaps at least some of those nominated really don't quite have the right credentials for the job of judge.

The four nominees whose chances of confirmation are viewed as nearly impossible are: William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon’s general counsel who was involved in setting many of the interrogation policies for detainees; William G. Myers III, a longtime lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries and a critic of environmental regulations; Terrence W. Boyle, a district court judge in North Carolina; and Michael B. Wallace of Mississippi, a lawyer rated unqualified for the court by the American Bar Association. [Emphasis added.]

What I found curious is that Mr. Bush would send these renominations to the lame duck Congress. Yes, the GOP owns this Congress, but the Democrats still have enough votes to use the filibuster. What is Dr. Frist going to do, threaten the dread nuclear option? If he does so, in a couple of months, that tool will be in the hands of the Democrats in the new Congress.

It's too early to tell just what the president has in mind beyond sheer mule-headedness. It certainly is possible that the president thinks that by deliberately provoking gridlock, he can turn the public away from the Democrats as the party who couldn't get anything done when they had the power. One thing is clear, however, his definition of "bipartisanship" is one that jibes with reality about as much as his definition of "victory."