.... I could not help but think about how the Democrats could've denied Bush the extra money for this stupid war, but went ahead with it.

.... the recent posts point to the fact that they're considering expanding Bush's spying powers indefinitely, even though those are set to expire shortly.

.... those Democrats, who we elected because we're tired of the "rubber stamping" Republicans, are planning to indemnify the telecommunications companies for their role in the illegal wiretapping.

Don't you see? Sure, they MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH BILLS TO STOP THE WAR, but by not acting on them, they also COULD STOP THE MADNESS BY NOT DOING ANYTHING.

That's why I feel so helpless and lied to by the Democratic "majority".

I just an eyeball of the Michigan Post, and I found myself infuriated with the selfishness of the current Republican Congress.

To wit:

<snip>

In the aftermath of an unfolding sex scandal involving sexually explicit instant messages and inappropriate e-mails between Foley and several underage male pages, there have been calls for the program to be suspended or abolished.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) has called for the current page class to be sent home and the whole program to be reviewed.

<paste>

Ah, I see. In other words: when a Congressman goes awry, cover your ass and punish the victims and the innocent, just to be safe.

Typical Republican values, folks!

Now, I'm of the mind of being neither Democratic nor Republican; both sides have commited sins in the past. But you'd think that this Administration would be a little MORE CIRCUMSPECT, and learn from the harsh lessons of history. About sex scandals in general, and how the equation (EGO + REPRESSED SEXUAL DESIRES) x POWER = SEX SCANDALS is as immutable as the Laws of Physics.

It seems to me, though, that the only lesson they've learned - and it shows that they're failing this class, since it never works out - is to correct a sex scandal, you first close the program that tempted the crooks, despite whether anyone IN THE PROGRAM IN QUESTION was involved, and hope the issue never comes up again.

At this rate, La Hood, and any others calling for the closing of the page program (which only rewards those who do well in school, from what I learned of it), are definitely not going to pass this test. So allow me to tell them what the ACTUAL correct answer will be:

<1> Keep the page program open. Punishing the students in these programs, the ones not even involved, or those victimized by powerful people, not only sends the wrong message to the voters; we also know that the program has done more good by encouraging young people about getting involved in the precious process of democracy, by exposing the inner workings of the Legislature. Keeping it open will also prevent this current scandal from being swept under the rug by doing something too short-sighted for anyone's good.

<2> By all means, investigate the situation. From what we know so far, the page program had no direct correlation between Foley and the sex scandal in question, except for the "exposure" of the child predator to young underaged people. Concentrating on the seats of power, and the people who knew of the problem yet covered it up, is where the investigation SHOULD start.

<3> Revamp the leadership roles in the Page Program. Keep out the partisanship, by nominating equal number of Democratic, Republican, and other parties into this role, and enforce the rule that ALL MISSIVES MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO ALL MEMBERS. We have the technology, so there's no more excuse for not informing everyone via e-mails, voice mails, or IM.


Sound planning there. Which means the Repubican wienership will NEVER go for it.

I swear, we should be looking at Congresspedia more often.

While everyone is talking about "Path to 9/11", political lawsuits, and November 9th (all worthy topics, I know), the monkey-business wheels in the Beltway keep a-rolling.

Take a gander at this:

Latest Update: Exposing Earmarks

(snip)

After deciding to drop his original hold on the Coburn-Obama-McCain-Carper earmark reform bill, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) first reinstated it, and has now dropped it yet again.

On the Democratic side, a new senator has emerged in the ongoing saga of anonymous holds. While Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) released his hold upon acknowledging it last week, a second Democrat has now placed one on the legislation, which now includes 40 co-sponsors from all sides of the political spectrum.

(paste)

(snip)

....Calling it "deeply ironic" that legislation designed to remove anonymity from earmarks is being stopped by secret holds, Frist then declared that he will bring the legislation to the floor "hold or no hold." As majority leader, Frist indeed has the power to go forward with the bill regardless of any outstanding holds on it.

(paste)

As if things aren't weird enough. Not only is there now a "secret Democrat" replacing Ted Steven's "secret hold", but now Bill Frist is forcing a vote on this legislation to reveal all government-funded projects in a publicly-accessed database.

My question is this: Do we know who the bad guys are anymore? Or are we looking at some strange politcal-motivated dance here?

Actually, come to think of it, I am still steamed at Bill Frist for getting involved in the California Senate vote (Bilbray v Busby).

Just refreshed my Congresspedia, and this caught my eye:

(snip)

Congress vs. the President (http://www.prwatch.org/node/5078 )
August 14, 2006

About two weeks ago, on July 26, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a report condemning President Bush's use of "signing statements." These statements are essentially a "P.S." written underneath his signature on a piece of legislation that states how he interprets and intends to enforce the law. (This is part of the Unitary Executive Theory.)

The ABA is not happy about this. From the press release (http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news0... ) for the report:

"Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers... To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President’s right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional."

The ABA asked and it shall receive: two days later Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) filed a bill that would allow the House or Senate to file a lawsuit to have the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of signing statements.

Here's where Congresspedia comes in. I called Sen. Specter's office and confirmed that while the bill has been referred to Specter's Senate Judiciary Committee, there has yet to be a hearing and no other Senators have signed up to be cosponsors. So, where do members of the Senate stand on Specter's bill? Citizen journalists, help us find out. So far, we've got supporting statements from Susan Collins (R-Maine), opposition from John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Jeff Sessions and ambivalence from John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Warner (R-Va.).

Help us nail down where the rest of the Senate stands on this important issue by emailing me at Conor AT sourcewatch.org or by going to our page on presidential signing statements, clicking "edit", and entering it in yourself. In keeping with our policy of strict sourcing, only edit it yourself if you've got a verifiable, outside source. Above all, we want Congresspedia to be accurate.

(paste)

I think we should jump on this. Bush's use of signing statements have been a sore point for all Americans; what good is the rule of law if the President holds himself above it?

Congresspedia: From the Editor