Abuse of Power
February 13th, 2008 at 11:17pm Matt Margolis
With nothing better to do, the Democrats in Congress are choosing to politicize their investigative powers.
This is the Democrats working hard to demonize and scandalize the Bush administration. They’ve been at it since Bush got into office. Sometimes you almost have to feel sorry for them. Since they don’t have a popular agenda to work on, the only thing they can do with their time is smear President Bush, who reached out across the aisle in first term, only have his hand bitten and his back stabbed. The very same President who has kept us safe.
Democrats have not merely made the political attack an art form, they’ve made it their way of life.
Entry Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Senate
19 Comments
1. phnx | February 13th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Abuse, how about misuse of power:
Senate investigations of baseball and football???
Can’t these morons actually do the people work?
2. Dennis | February 14th, 2008 at 12:02 am
What you fail to mention is that the investigation in question is in regard to politically motivated firings of U.S. attorneys. The Justice Department is one branch of government that is legally obligated to function in the absence of political considerations.
The nature of Congress’s obligation as elected representatives of the people, on the other hand, dictates that the machinery of the political system be used to set investigative processes in motion. The impeachment investigations against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton all were accompanied by procedures, reports, and hearings that were inherently both political and legal in nature. In all cases the House floor had to approve the conduct of the formal inquiry.
As for the present contempt proceedings against Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers, John Conyers seems to have stated it quite well: “It is a step that is clearly necessary to preserve the role and constitutional prerogatives of Congress as an institution, in addition to getting to the bottom of the U.S. Attorney controversy…”
At least the present hearings under a Democratic majority are happening in the full light of public scrutiny. Clearly the Bush admin prefers other ways, such as signing statements, cherry-picked intelligence, secret hearings and going behind the back of Congress.
It is also relevant to note that the Clinton impeachment happened against the will of the majority of Americans, but with a highly partisan, politically motivated GOP majority in Congress the impeachment rolled on full steam ahead - ultimately to no objective except political payback and embarrassment.
Contrast with now, when a far greater percentage (a plurality if not a clear majority) of Americans do wish for a house cleaning on Capitol Hill - this may be presumed from the 2006 Congressional elections, which put a clear Democratic majority in place at a time when the issues in question were becoming news.
3. Brian G. | February 14th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Actually, their oh-so-unpopular agenda swept them into the majority in both houses of Congress in 2006. And I think I speak for everyone in their right mind when I say that President Bush has pretty much destroyed his own credibility (I won’t deign to call it a presidency).
4. Matt Margolis | February 14th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Dennis, you mean when all the U.S. Attorneys were fired?
Oh wait, that was Clinton who did that — but I’m sure when Clinton got rid of them all that there absolutely nothing political about that…
and Brian G. you only speak for yourself and perhaps a few other liberal loons.
5. Dennis | February 14th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Matt, this detail has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. Clinton fired all the attorneys at the beginning of his term, with no political issues hanging in the balance. It was simply a clean sweep.
Bush could have done the same thing without raising questions - however his admin did their firing a.) selectively; b.) in secret, or at least making serious attempts to cover their tracks; c.) deep into Bush’s presidency, with significant political and electoral interests at stake in the districts where those attorneys were fired.
It really shouldn’t take a genius to see the difference.
6. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 12:47 am
5. Dennis
Yeah, but then you can’t exhibit your CDS.
7. searp | February 14th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Misleading history. Bush reached across the aisle until he had a stick to beat those on the other side. Once he had the stick he used it unmercifully to push through an agenda that simply wasn’t popular. It was polarizing, and you reap what you sow.
That is why his popularity is so low: a majority of the citizens rejects his policy approaches, whether on Iraq or privatizing Social Security. They don’t like him, period. They mistrust his policy instincts and understand that his world view has caused more problems than it has solved. Note that none of the Republican candidates mention Bush regularly. This is the clearest indication that the president is deeply unpopular.
OK, it is the case that his 30% or so is very loyal. That doesn’t change the fact that it is about 30%.
Those Democrats were elected precisely to rein him in, investigate corruption and government high-handedness and restore the authority of law. They are doing their jobs.
8. Christian Wright | February 14th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Bush & Company scandalized themselves.
It is only a matter of time before they are before The Hague and charged with war crimes.
I believe treason, defined by betraying your country for another country’s benefit, should be redefined to include betraying your country for the interests of multinational corporations.
9. plainjane | February 14th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Matt, place the blame where it really belongs, with the American people. Everything was going great. For years the Republican congress got what they wanted, pork from taxpayers’ money and the President got what he wanted a war Presidency with unlimited taxpayer funding. It was running so smoothly there was not a single veto and only happy talk when administration officials were asked by Congress as to how their departments such as FEMA, State and Justice were operating.
But the American people destroyed all of this utopia by placing the Democrats in charge and demanding accountability. They are demanding the President uphold the Constitution no matter how difficult, they are demanding the Justice department be fair and impartial, they are demanding agencies such as FEMA and FDA help Americans in time of disasters and protect our children from products produced in countries with little or no product safety laws.
Matt what is now happening to President Bush and his cronies is the direct result of the last election and the wishes of the American people. Thus you should direct your harshest criticism towards them. How dare the majority of the American people be so ungrateful for all that President Bush and the Republican Congress did for them?
10. js | February 14th, 2008 at 9:04 am
All this jabberwokkie about how much bad stuff Bush did.
Why arent they making direct points? Generalizations is about all they have.
“Oh, he did bad things” Said WHO? the DNC and all thier cronies?
You gotta be kidding me, this is the BEST you got to counter (and change the subject) from the LAME DEMONCRAT LEADERSHIP in Congress and Senate? A faux election based on eliminating the “caucus of corruption”, concieved and orchestrated by the very core of the corruption that they would root out? liberal half wits just dont have common sense, do they!!
Please, dont tell me this is all you got, what a JOKE it is!!
11. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | February 14th, 2008 at 9:07 am
And exactly what was that whole Clinton impeachment thing about? Have you ever heard a liberal member of Congress or even a liberal blogger utter the phrase a permanent Democratic majority?
If the opinions of the American people who supported President Clinton at a level of greater than 50% even after the Lewinsky scandal broke and even after he was Impeached do not matter then whose opinion does?
The reason that American, in my humble opinion, are angry at Congress is because they did not bring the corrupt GOP regime to task with greater relish. A simple explanation of how this animosity translates directly into presidential popularity is to look at figures for both Bill Clinton and George W Bush from the same periods in their second terms
From Polling Report.com Bush as gleaned from the Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll which asked:
“Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?”
1/30-31/08 33% approve 60% disapprove 7 don’t know.
In the same time and having been asked the same question about Bill Clinton the Fox Poll found
2/9-10/00 66% approve 29 disapprove 5% don’t know
For clarity we’ll look at the CBS News New York Times Poll which asks:
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?”
1/30 - 2/2/08 29% approve 62% disapprove 9 don’t know
When asked the same question about bill Clinton 8 years ago the CBS News New York Times Poll found this:
2/12-14/00 60% approve 31% disapprove 9% don’t know
The people, the folks who go to the polls and vote when asked held Clinton’s performance in a higher regard than the same performance by George W Bush. if such polls cannot be believed i take it we can throw out the public support for George W Bush that swelled immediately after September 11, 2001 when he had a Fox approval of 81%.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
12. Joel | February 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
If the Co-Prez was so good the last time, Dems should be flocking together for another 8 years of nothing. But Osama Bama, has the lead. What’s up with that?
13. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | February 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
A Human Being naemd Carl Rosen once told me, “It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.” I tend to agree with that assessment with Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania left yet to have their primaries.
So let us wait a spell shall we and see count up the casting of the dice after they have fully settled.
14. Sunny | February 14th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Joel | February 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
“If the Co-Prez was so good the last time, Dems should be flocking together for another 8 years of nothing. But Osama Bama, has the lead. ”
Yep, we have a sixth grader posting today. Can’t bring himself to behave as an adult and properly identify Senator Obama. You show your immaturity when you make such posts.
15. Joel | February 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Why should I indenty him as Senator. Up until 8 years ago it was President _____. Bush is elected and he his referred to only as Mr. Bush.
As someone who lives in IL, I find the man a fake, a puppet, created by the money behind the Chicago demwit machine.
You can feel free to call him Senator if you like. From his record, what little there is, I find that Kennedy was correct calling him Barak Osama Bama.
16. Magnum Serpentine | February 14th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Matt…
When Clinton Lied, no one died
When george lied, 3000 or so of our Soldiers died.
“The world wonders” Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, World War 2, 1945
17. Joel | February 14th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
MS,
Many died-Clinton fiddled.
Many died-Clinton lied about what he fiddled.
My statements above are truth. You repeating lies about lies, does not make truth.
18. Fmr Marine | February 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
>>>>Clinton fired all the attorneys at the beginning of his term, with no political issues hanging in the balance. It was simply a clean sweep.<<<<<<
WHAT a LOAD of LYING CRAP !!!!
Several of those attys were investigating,whitewater, and the rose law firm.
The US attys serve at the discretion of the president. DONE, OVER, FINI.
This about the RATS poking at the Republicans until the very end of the term. They are a treacherous, despicable, divisive marxists that will prove the downfall of this fine Republic.
19. Addiction Rehab Centers&hellip | March 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Addiction Rehab Centers
A great deal of the information that you will uncover dealing with this theme are very knowledgeable, while many are not.