Jack's posts with tag: republicans-a-go-go
 Well, this is very interesting. From White House Press Secretary Tony Snow:
The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability.
Cool. I guess we can all go home now and call Bush King. UPDATE:
Forgive the redundancy after having just mentioned this, but it’s worth paying special attention to the new White House talking point.
Tony Snow on ABC: “The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability.”
Snow on CBS: “The legislative branch has no oversight responsibility over the White House.”
Snow during press briefing:
“[T]he Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the
Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does
not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House,
which is why by our reaching out, we’re doing something that we’re not
compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests
that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we’re doing.”
Look, I know these guys are into all kinds of strange ideas about a
unitary executive, but this is ridiculous. If the legislative branch
doesn’t have oversight responsibilities over the White House, does Snow
think the White House has to answer to anyone?
I was struck by Snow’s notion that Congress “created the Department of
Justice.” Historically, I that’s true; the judicial branch was
responsible for establishing cabinet agencies, which lawmakers then
fund and oversee, even though the agencies are part of the executive
branch.
I won’t get into a lengthy, turgid poli sci thesis here, but this
new argument seems to be that the legislative branch may pay the White
House’s bills, but that doesn’t mean it can serve as a check on the
White House’s power. If that’s literally the best the Bush gang can
come up with, they’re in trouble.
Alex, in the last thread, pointed to this helpful report (.pdf) from the Congressional Oversight Manual.
The Constitution grants Congress extensive authority to
oversee and investigate executive branch activities. The constitutional
authority for Congress to conduct oversight stems from such explicit
and implicit provisions as:
1. The power of the purse. The Constitution provides that “No
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law.” Each year the Committees on Appropriations
of the House and Senate review the financial practices and needs of
federal agencies. The appropriations process allows the Congress to
exercise extensive control over the activities of executive agencies.
Congress can define the precise purposes for which money may be spent,
adjust funding levels, and prohibit expenditures for certain purposes.
2. The power to organize the executive branch. Congress has
the authority to create, abolish, reorganize, and fund federal
departments and agencies. It has the authority to assign or reassign
functions to departments and agencies, and grant new forms of authority
and staff to administrators. Congress, in short, exercises ultimate
authority over executive branch organization and generally over policy.
3. The power to make all laws for “carrying into Execution” Congress’s own enumerated powers as well as those of the executive.
Article I grants Congress a wide range of powers, such as the power to
tax and coin money; regulate foreign and interstate commerce; declare
war; provide for the creation and maintenance of armed forces; and
establish post offices. Augmenting these specific powers is the
so-called “Elastic Clause,” which gives Congress the authority “To make
all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.” Clearly, these provisions grant broad
authority to regulate and oversee departmental activities established
by law.
4. The power to confirm officers of the United States. The
confirmation process not only involves the determination of a nominee’s
suitability for an executive (or judicial) position, but also provides
an opportunity to examine the current policies and programs of an
agency along with those policies and programs that the nominee intends
to pursue.
5. The power of investigation and inquiry. A traditional
method of exercising the oversight function, an implied power, is
through investigations and inquiries into executive branch operations.
Legislators often seek to know how effectively and efficiently programs
are working, how well agency officials are responding to legislative
directives, and how the public perceives the programs. The
investigatory method helps to ensure a more responsible bureaucracy,
while supplying Congress with information needed to formulate new
legislation.
6. Impeachment and removal. Impeachment provides Congress
with a powerful, ultimate oversight tool to investigate alleged
executive and judicial misbehavior, and to eliminate such misbehavior
through the convictions and removal from office of the offending
individuals.
Keep in mind, based on Snow’s comments today, this isn’t the
executive privilege argument, this is the executive privilege argument on crack. The principle of executive privilege, while fluid, addresses a president’s need for candor from advisors. As the president said
the other day, “[I]f the staff of a President operated in constant fear
of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal
deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the
American people would be ill-served.”
But today’s argument goes much further and suggests Congress lacks the authority to ask the White House questions at all.
And given the frequency with which Snow used the argument today, we can
expect to hear quite a bit more about this in the coming days.
I have a hunch this is going to get ugly.
November 03, 2006 11:35 AM
Maddy Sauer Reports:
 Despite
running an attack ad accusing a Democratic senatorial candidate of
accepting money from "porn movie producers," the Republican National
Committee itself has accepted several donations over the past few years
from the president of a large pornographic movie distribution company.
Marina Pacific Distributors calls itself "the leader in adult video
distribution." Included in the movies for sale on their Web site are
videos made by "Active Duty Productions." Active Duty, as their name
suggests, has cast active duty soldiers in some of their films but not
without serious consequences for the soldiers.
Three Fort Bragg soldiers were found guilty and sentenced to prison
in separate courts-martial earlier this year for appearing in
pornographic videos made by Active Duty. The charges included sodomy
and conduct detrimental to the Army. Four other soldiers accused of
appearing in Active Duty videos were also punished outside of the
military court system.
Active Duty's films, however, continue to be sold by large pornographic video distributors, including Marina Pacific.
The president of Marina Pacific, Nicholas Boyias, has personally
contributed to the Republican party several times over the last few
years, six times to the Republican National Committee. The donations
range from $200 to $500 and total around $2,000, according to a search
of federal election records.
The RNC would not comment on the donations from Boyias or from the porn industry in general.
A Marina Pacific spokesman said Boyias is a moderate Republican who
supports candidates and causes on both sides of the aisle, though no
contributions to Democrats were found in a search of federal election
records. The company continues to sell Active Duty's films, which
include "Fire in the Hole," "Platoon Party" and "Thrill Sergeant."
Back at Fort Bragg, a spokesman for the 82nd Airborne said it's
distressing to know that Active Duty's videos are still being sold.
"It's very frustrating for the leaders of the 82nd Airborne to know
that people like this are out in the public who prey on our troops,"
said Major Thomas Earnhardt.
When asked about the soldiers who were sent to prison for appearing
in the films, a spokesman for Marina Pacific said, "They made a choice,
and they were of legal age."
CIA head Porter Goss unexpectedly resigns
Snip:
CIA Director Porter Goss resigned unexpectedly Friday,
leaving behind a spy agency still battling to recover from the scars of
intelligence failures before America's worst terrorist attack and
faulty information that formed the U.S. rationale for invading Iraq.
AP item here.
Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 06:44:55 AM PDT I
spent a good five minutes trying to think of a non-sensational headline
that didn't sound like it came from the pages of the New York Post. I
failed. You just can't tone done the sex and corruption scandal that
is about to rock Washington, D.C. (you can read Old 33's diary on it here.)
About five months ago, the San Diego Union-Tribune
reported that lobbyist Brent Wilkes (co-conspirator #1 in the Duke
Cunningham scanal) knew how to "grease the wheels" of Congress with
cash, gifts, favors, and yes, "hospitality suites":
Wilkes befriended other legislators, too. He ran a
hospitality suite, with several bedrooms, in Washington - first in the
Watergate Hotel and then in the Westin Grand near Capitol Hill.
Hotline picked up on it, and we wondered aloud here
whether the bedrooms hinted at a sex scandal about to blow up on
Capitol Hill, or whether there was a more benign explanation. After
all, no member of Congress would be stupid enough to, well, prostitute
himself and the legislative process by accepting the services of a
hooker bought and paid for by lobbyists, right?
Well, folks, we may have ourselves a genuine sex scandal.
The Wall Street Journal
is reporting that there is enough evidence of a lobbyist-sponsored
prostitution ring that investigators are scurrying across D.C., trying
to figure out exactly which lawmakers were involved:
In recent weeks, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents
have fanned out across Washington, interviewing women from escort
services, potential witnesses and others who may have been involved in
the arrangement.
Prosecutors were tipped off about the sex-for-favors scheme by Mitchell
Wade, who has already plead guilty to bribing Cunningham and is
cooperating with investigators. Wilkes, through his attorney, has
denied any involvement.
Ken Silverstein at Harper's blog
dropped a bombshell last night about just how far-reaching the scandal
may be, revealing that the FBI is investigating former lawmakers,
including "one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post." TPM Muckraker points out that CIA Director Porter Goss fits that description perfectly. Silverstein also disclosed that there are pictures.
It seemed, as Markos said when Hotline first reported on the
hospitality suites, "insanely improbable" that the culture of
corruption included a lobbyist-sponsored prostitution ring. Yet five
months later, here we are, firmly outside of tinfoil hat territory,
reading about a Republican sex scandal in the pages of the Wall Street
Journal.
And let us not forget that, at this point, it is a Republican
sex scandal. Porter Goss, if you'll recall, was a highly partisan
Republican lawmaker for fifteen years before he was tapped as CIA
Director. And Justin Rood over at TPM Muckraker thinks that the
prostitution ring could lasted about fifteen years.
Is the CIA Director involved in a D.C. prostitution ring? (It's so
surreal just to type that question out). In refusing to investigate the
CIA leak case, Goss famously proclaimed "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation."
Goss, it appears, is a stickler for physical evidence. Will pictures
do? Hotel logs? Eyewitness identification by the prostitutes themselves?
All we have now are questions. It remains unknown who is implicated and
to what extent they participated in this sex-for-favors scheme. But
one thing is certain, as evidence comes to light, this scandal is going
to be blown wide open, and there's no telling who or how many
Republicans will go down.
Congressional Candidate Slams Press Coverage of Iraq--With Bogus Photo
By E&P Staff
Published: March 29, 2006 2:30 PM ET
NEW YORK How far will critics of media coverage of the Iraq war go to prove reporters are wrongly focusing on the negative?
One answer came this week, in a shocking if amusing episode featuring
one Howard Kaloogian, a leading Republican running for the seat in
Congress recently vacated by indicted Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
He posted on the official Web site for his campaign a picture taken in
“downtown Baghdad,” he said, during his visit to the city, which
supposedly indicated that the media was wrong about the level of
violence in the city. “We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we
were in Iraq,” he wrote. “Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm
and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the
news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and
shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the
U.S. effort to fight terrorism."
But the blogosphere quickly smelled a rat.
The photo featured people who didn’t seem dressed quite right for Iraq,
and signs and billboards that looked off, too. In the now-familiar
pattern, the ace detective work leaped from obscure blogs to the
well-known (Talking Points Memo, Eschaton, Attytood, more), and back
again, as eagle-eyed experts proposed alternative locales, with Turkey
a likely suspect.
In less than a day, it was over. “Jem6X” at the popular DailyKos blog confirmed the street scene was in Istanbul, not Baghdad.
Tipped off by someone who recognized the actual intersection in
Istanbul, Jem went through online photo galleries and in a matter of
minutes today found a snap taken by a “Faruk” that lined up with the
“Baghdad” photo in numerous conclusive ways. Game, set, and match to
the blogosphere.
The PIC from his site in below:
Republicans Turn on Santorum
By David Holman
Published 3/3/2006 12:08:26 AM
Does party loyalty run both ways among Republican senators? That remains to be seen after Republican Majority for Choice (RMC), a pro-abortion caucus within the GOP, began a spirited attack on Sen. Rick Santorum this week.
RMC launched full- and quarter-page ads in nearly every major daily newspaper in Pennsylvania -- mock "Help Wanted" announcements calling for "Real Republican Candidates for Senate." The ad advocates "the Big Tent philosophy Ronald Reagan helped to build," and warns in bold, "Candidates who claim to be Republicans but instead use the Party to further their own personal or religious agenda need not apply." While the ad never names Santorum explicitly, its pro-abortion and anti-religious opposition to him is unmistakable.
With eight days between the launch of the ad campaign and the March 7 petition filing deadline for the Pennsylvania primaries, the search for "real" Republican primary opponents to Santorum appears half-hearted. Two thousand signatures would be required for a challenger to make it on to the ballot. Rather than a search, RMC's ad campaign could signal open hostility among Republican senators. This move comes in the midst of speculation that Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, will run as an independent in the Senate race.
Jennifer Blei Stockman, national co-chair of the RMC, confirmed that while the group is targeting Santorum, its strategy looks past the March 7 filing deadline. She told TAS Thursday that her group had "exhausted" all possibilities for candidates in the past several months. While RMC hopes another candidate "surfaces," Stockman said, "The ad is meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that we cannot continue electing candidates like Rick Santorum because he's not helping the party's image."
The RMC campaign places Sen. Arlen Specter in a precarious position, as he sits on the group's advisory committee. In a move widely viewed as placing party loyalty over conservative principles, Santorum backed the pro-abortion Specter in the 2004 Senate primary against kindred conservative then-Rep. Pat Toomey. Now with Santorum on the ropes, liberal Republicans are refusing to return the favor -- and Arlen Specter's name is attached to their effort.
Joe Sterns, Pat Toomey's former press secretary, told TAS that Specter should oppose the RMC ad campaign. "It's a fair commentary on the pro-abortion rights Republicans," he said. "It betrays their hypocrisy as preachers of a big tent. I would encourage Senator Specter and others of their ilk to use their leadership to tell this group to knock it off."
When TAS contacted Specter's office about the ad Thursday, he disavowed it in a statement: "While I am on the Advisory Committee, my advice was neither solicited nor given on the ad. My preference would be to be a little more conciliatory in trying to bring together the various elements of our party. Regardless of the sentiments expressed in the ad, my number one priority for 2006 continues to be the reelection of Senator Santorum." Specter's office would not answer questions as to whether the senator plans to protest the ad to RMC's leadership or resign from the group.
Another pro-abortion Republican senator on the RMC advisory committee benefiting from the party's large tent is Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. To the chagrin of conservatives, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is supporting the liberal Republican over his conservative challenger, Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey. Chafee is also the choice of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Chafee's office declined to voice disapproval of RMC's tactics. Stephen Hourahan, Chafee's press secretary, told TAS, "Senator Chafee supports all of his Republican colleagues and he is committed to their reelection." Hourahan denied that the ad targets Sen. Santorum. Officials from the Chafee campaign were unavailable for comment.
RMC co-chair Stockman argued that Santorum merits such extraordinary attention and opposition because his emphasis on social conservatism is hurting the party and his own candidacy. "We think there's a line that needs to be drawn between more extremist Republicans like Rick Santorum, who are there for more social issues, and the more important economic issues. He distracts from that agenda by bringing up these controversial issues. It confuses people as to where the Republican Party stands today."
Pressed to define better RMC's views, Stockman acknowledged that the group didn't support or oppose the federal partial birth abortion ban, but said, "We're a conservative group on other issues. We're fiscal conservatives. We support our President in the war against terrorism. But we do draw the line at proselytizing. We think that's completely inappropriate for politics."
The RMC is using the same strategy as conservative interest groups within the Republican Party, Stockman insisted. "We've always kept our mouths shut. This is the first time in our history that we're going after one of our own," she said. "We think the only way to create a dialogue on these important issues is by playing by the same rules as the Club for Growth, the National Right to Life Committee has been playing by, by going after candidates we don't agree with." Stockman said that regardless of her group's differences with Santorum, it would "never support a Casey." Bob Casey Jr. is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in the Senate race and claims to be pro-life.
How Senators Specter and Chafee handle the anti-Santorum maneuvers of the Republican Majority for Choice will be telling. Certain pro-life and conservative Republicans chose party unity and even personal interest over principled politics when they turned on Toomey. If Specter and Chafee continue to lend their names to the Republican Majority for Choice, conservative Republicans will be revealed as cynical politicians who shovel money to their ideological opponents.
| |
