In the meantime, CheneyBushRove continue their in-your-face, bullying approach to Congress whenever it takes even little steps to rein in the Administration's overweening power. The object of the enterprise is to run out the clock on their second term without them getting impeached or tried criminally; to accomplish this, that triumvirate will just continue their tried-and-true M.O.: Grab what we want, do what we want, until someone stops us.
If Chairmen Conyers or Leahy or Waxman request and then subpoena documents, for example, the Bush Administration will continue to simply ignore them, or file endless appeals to the Bushevik-stacked appelate courts. Delay, delay, delay.
The Democratic response is to make a lot of noise in frustration but not to force real action and confrontation.
WAYS OF CONFRONTING BUSHEVIKS
The Democratic committees are slowly, in piecemeal fashion, going after various scandals and corruptions and terrible policies, but in no coordinated way and with no courage to simply confront the Executive Branch and thus bring our current Constitutional crisis to its head. (Perhaps a partial explanation for this timidity can be found in the Dems' suspicion that the U.S. Supreme Court -- which ultimately would rule on the Constitutional confrontation between the Legislative and Executive branches -- is now front-loaded with Bushista ideologues Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia. So why risk it?)
But more likely, the Democrats, as they demonstrated when they were the minority in Congress and now as the majority party, simply don't know how to attack an administration that feels no compunction about lying, ignoring all the rules and traditions, and regularly acting above the law. The CheneyBushRove Administration is a kind of criminal conspiracy, which controls the Department of Justice and much of the court system, and they simply won't change their ways unless absolutely forced to. Impeachment is one of the few realities that might force them to.
Here are three possible scenarios for concentrated oppositional tactics:
1. ARREST THE LAW-BREAKERS
What would happen, for example, if when the subpoenaed documents demanded by the Legislative Branch are not produced by the due date, the Sergeant of Arms and the Capitol Police were to march up to the White House to demand them or have the officials who authored or control them face immediate arrest?
That would speed up the Constitutional showdown, with the courts forced to rule on this legal standoff ASAP.
If the status quo continues -- a one-day hearing here, a document requested there, still more stonewalling and lying -- the Roveian strategy of running out the clock until 2009 probably would work, and the possibility of impeachment prior to the end of their tenure would be virtually impossible.
2. FORCE GOP TO VOTE AGAINST APPLE PIE
Crisis Papers co-editor Ernest Partridge has come up a brilliant suggestion that would force the Republicans in Congress into an untenable position: ( http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7p/delinquent.htm )
>>"Five months into its new term, the Congress now in control of the Democratic party has done essentially nothing to restore the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. The initial decisive act leading to that end might be as simple as the passage of this two sentence resolution:
>> "'The Congress of the United States hereby affirms that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. Accordingly, any and all legislation and executive orders in violation of the Constitution are null and void'."
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
Dr. Weiner you column has not fallen on deaf ears. There has been nothing more disheartening than the decorum exuded by the newly elected majority in Congress. As you state, they have become "enablers" of this war by not doing what they were elected to do.
Of course, it looks like a Democrat will win the White House in 2008. But that is just supposition. During the last few national elections, a swing of 2 percent or so would have changed the outcome. Well, what if the Democrats win the popular vote AGAIN but don't win the Electoral vote in 2008. Therein lies the reason the Dems are blowing their best chance - not only to show defiance, independence and leadership - but to stop the illegal machinery of the GOP, which you rightly point out.
The reality is the Dems control the Congress and the State Houses across our nation. To modify this success to parlay these wins into 2008 could turn out to be a grave mistake. Even if it does produce a presidential win in 2008, the stakes are the billions of dollars and massive war deaths that continue to mount daily, weekly and annually.
Dusty Nathan
by
Dusty Nathan (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 53 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 7:28:43 AM
When only millionaires run for office, only millionaires will be represented.
When machines count the votes, the people’s votes don’t count.
The Dempublicans are dangling another carrot with the investigation of election fraud (caging). Like Lucy with the football and us as poor Linus, we’re suppose to believe they’ll actually do anything about a crime that obviously involves millions of dollars and hundreds of people.
This coming from the same Dempublicans that throw the will of a vast majority of the people in a ditch by refunding and increasing an illegal occupation. The same Dempublicans who as of yet done next to nothing to have even one major crime figure in this criminal, ass-clown act we call our government even break a sweat! After six-years of being able to gather evidence of the blatant crimes committed they STILL need more time.
Well pardon me if I’m not getting excited.
Dempublican: Any Democratic Party Member that ignores the will of the people. Also see: liar, hypocrite, back-stabbing soulless whores
You can forget the 08' election. Enough people will abandon the Dempublicans because of their dismal performance to date to give the Republicans the White House. I absolutely believe this is by design. Both parties suck of the same MIC tit. The will of the people, the government by the people has long past been dead and buried. As long as there is no public funding of the elections, as long as there is no uniform verifiable voting system, as long as corporations are given the same rights as people, as long as 1% controls 98% of the wealth we'll never have the democratic/republic our Founding Fathers envisioned.
And you can forget about any Third Party. There is no way the entrenched powers will allow the system they have forged for the past 150 years to be changed without violent revolution, and the people of this country are too fragmented, too cowardly and too lazy for any action of that nature.
I don't really see anything good coming our way. Factions beyond just political are clashing with a collapsing environment, fading natural resources, mass extinction and population explosion that only divine intervention could stop. It is certain that no current political solution can stop it. They have about as much effect as a boxcar full of drunk monkeys.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 2015 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 8:14:47 AM
Perhaps the Bushites and the Dems are having a battle of long range strategic positioning?
The Bushite junta wants to string their failed war out just long enough so they can hand the whole bloody stinking mess they've created over to the next administration to solve and therefore "share the blame" - the Neocons will then be able to say: "See? The Dems couldn't fix it either!"
Meanwhile (perhaps) the Dems WANT to let the Bushite's war continue and of course continue to fail, because the longer it continues and the MORE it fails - it drives more and more voters OUT of the Republican camp.
That of course is a cynical POV because it means both parties are willing to sacrifice US troops and large chunks of the budget to maneuver their party into a 'better' postion sometime in the near future. However the cynical view is about the ONLY view that makes any sense in D.C. anymore.
AND - perhaps "failure in Iraq" is not really failure from the POV of Bushite strategists. Their desire was/is to create an unstable powder keg in the middle east to act as fuel and reason for their wet dream of a 30-50 years of warfare in that region. Remember the Bushites are THE folks who profit massively from war - they are the makers of weapons and weapons systems, the are the private military contractors. The Bushites ARE the blood-drenched WAR PROFITEERS of myth and fable who see dollar signs everytime another conflict is ignited somewhere on the globe. They thrive on death and wholesale destruction. The Bushite agenda IS to drive disenfranchised youth of the Islamic world to become Jihadis because they will then furnish the raw material which will eventually equate to a better "return on investment" for the industries owned and operated by Bushites. Their real agenda is to transfer huge chunks of the US Treasury into their own bank accounts by selling what the US public will demand: protection from and terror and "terrorists".
by
mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 11:27:48 AM
Well, I don't know if you and I qualify as "great minds," but I was putting the finishing touches on what turns out to be a somewhat parallel article this AM. When I saw and read yours, I decided to put mine aside for a while. I will put if up later today. Nice job on yours!
Hey mrk glad to see you and so many others using the name I coined for the Bush group in early 2002, the Bushites. I may already have mentioned that. Kind of welcome fun to see it elsewhere used by others.
How truly far we have fallen from that dream of our forefathers and even from the days of FDR. You know the great Phsyicist Gödel, a good friend of Einstein's, when he was preparing to take his Citizenship exam in 1947, said and obsessed over what he says he found in our Constitution, "A fatal flaw" that could easily be exploited to destroy our freedoms and bring a Dictatorship into power. He was right on target, and it makes you wonder why anyone would want to destroy such a treasure. Or why it was never fixed.
I agree with you all, that there now is little hope for an end to the MCA of 2006 or the Patriot Act.
A sad time. Glad I am not a kid just starting out.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1311 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 1:36:44 PM
I knew there was a very good reason to read this article. The writ idea is one that needs to happen. There has been a total failure of the vast majority of Congress, not just Democrats, to fulfill their constitutional duties. Lets "writ" the a letter, sending them a message.
It's not just Iraq, although that's more than enough, it's everything else - the dissolution of the Constitution; the failure to investigate stolen elections (e.g., 2004) and secure future elections; the dishonest budget tactics that defraud tax payers.
Ellis' idea is brilliant. Lets "do."
by
Michael Collins (111 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 399 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 2:05:08 PM
If I was a republican running for the white house I would sure be pointing out this fact to the voters. You voted these folks in and they did not have the guts to stand up for the ideals of their voters. Can you really expect them to to stand up if we need them say in a real war or real emergency ? I would have to say no.
by
mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 92 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 2:52:22 PM
She, along with the other Dems that don't have the courage to do their job, need to be reminded that by letting George Bush, Dick Cheney et al get away with what they have done....they are just as culpable.
If they REALLY want to win in 2008....then Impeach.
All it takes is a SIMPLE majority in the House to take it to the Senate and the Dems have that. Everyone knows that there aren't enough votes in the Senate to remove them from office, but neverthless, they will be branded with the "I" word forever in history.
by
patricia anderson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 8:04:38 PM
A Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is a Motion to a Court of competent jurisdiction requesting an order from that court to a civil servant to perform a non-discretionary act or be held in contempt. The issue on appeal in almost all mandamus cases is whether the act in question is discretionary. If there is any room whatsoever for judgment on the civil servant's part, then the act is discretionary and mandamus is not a proper remedy. Mandamus is usually seen in such matters as where the property appraiser refuses to issue a tax deed although the statutory requirements for issuance have been met, or the jail refuses to release a defendant although his bail has been posted.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 439 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 9:50:00 PM
... although as I think someone already pointed out, a writ of Mandamous cannot be used the way you propose, but that is incidental.
You have composed a very thoughtful critique of the Democrats first 6 months or so back in power. Someone better read this or something like it to them and they better get with the program.
In one of my recent articles on similar themes, I noted that I had no idea how to articulate the Democratic Party position on Iraq. Howard Dean and his folks need to come up with one. It is fine if individual senators or representatives have alternative viewpoints and plans, but the party should put one out there.
by
Steven Leser (231 articles, 49 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 1798 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 10:00:56 PM
11 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
