Not a Good Week for Republicans in Congress

The FBI raided a business connected to Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) on Thursday afternoon. These raids are starting to have a broader effect than simply giving heartburn to some representatives. Committee assignments are being effected.

As a result of the raid, Renzi is stepping down from his seat on the House Intelligence Committee, according to a statement from his office obtained Thursday evening by Roll Call.

Doolittle likewise has resigned his seat on the Appropriations Committee after his home was raided the week before.

Not Going Well for Alberto

Apparently things are not going too well for our AG Alberto Gonzales. This from Byron York is pretty damning, especially considering that this is from the NRO, generally pretty friendly terrain for members of the Bush Administration. In Byron York's words, for example

The major problem with his testimony is that Gonzales maintains, in essence, that he doesn’t know why he fired at least some of the eight dismissed U.S. attorneys.

or from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham

“Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch,” Graham told Gonzales. “I think most of them [the U.S. attorneys] had personality disagreements with the White House, and you made up reasons to fire them.”

At this point it would seem that Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Sam Brownback, and Sen. Tom Coburn, solid conservatives all, have all been extremely critical of Gonzales. And by that I mean calling for him to resign or accusing him of lying. These aren't the only conservatives on the committee giving the AG a tough time and the Democrats are even less friendly. Alberto is having a bad day.

FBI Raids Congressman's home

Latest reports are that the Viginia home of Rep. John Doolittle was raided by the FBI last Friday. Now this raid would be in relation to the Abramoff scandal. Clearly, although it hasn't been in the news for several months, that investigation is still underway and still producing results. I would suspect as well that the FBI is not casually raiding the homes of Congressmen, so there is probably something pretty significant already uncovered. The Republican party can hardly continue to function with these issues popping up one after the other. None of the various scandals has been resolved completely before new ones pop up. And with the Democrats pushing their oversight role in Congress this is only going to get worse for the GOP. Keep watching is all I can say.

Update: More on the raid and the Doolittle relationship to Abramoff in the Washington Post. Incidentally the Post is claiming that the near simultaneous resignation of Kevin Ring, former legislative director to Doolittle, from the lobbying firm of Barnes & Thornburg was a coincidence. Ring was also implicated in the Abramoff scandal and it had been thought that the two events were linked.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bush's invitation to Congress

Apparently Bush has a new proposal for resolving the impasse between the White House and Congress over the funding for the Iraq war. His proposal is to have leaders from both parties in Congress come to the White House where he will explain what he wants again and will refuse to negotiate or compromise in any way. Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum are covering it so far. Needless to say this is classic Bush style, my way or the highway. What reason Democrats would have to take this offer up is a complete mystery as is what the White House really expects to accomplish with it. But it strikes me that there is something implied by this as well. If the White House really thinks that vetoing the existing bill is such a winner for them, why make any kind of offer (however worthless). It seems to me that this offer, as it is, is driven by two things, the White House refusal to compromise or cooperate on anything, but also, the White House does not want to veto the existing bill. It is finally sinking in that their old talk tough approach has lost its appeal to the American voter and they stand a fair chance of being crushed if they do veto the bill. This is a clear a sign of desperation on the part of this White House that you will ever get so Democrats, please stand tough.

Pay attention Congress

Latest AP poll shows that public approval of Congress is rising. Please Congress, note that the American people, you know, the folks who have elected you, like it when you oppose Bush. Please do more of that.

Bush Weakening

It is my conviction that the only strength Bush has ever had was his unwavering insistence in his own near absolute authority. A refusal to ever doubt that one is correct and in charge can carry one very far. However, unless this conviction in one's own abilities is backed by actual abilities, disaster and failure eventually follow. Bush's assertions of competence and authority have always been fantasies. We are seeing that collapsing now.

Consider Bush's threatened veto of the recently passed spending bill for Iraq. Gene Lyons has raised an interesting point, why is Bush threatening a veto rather than use his long standing signing statement. For all of Bush's bluster and confidence over the past several years, he has never had the authority he claims. He was able to assert it and use it only because of a completely servile Republican majority in Congress and a Democratic minority unwilling and/or unable to put forth effective resistance. With the Democrats in Congress not rolling over and offering a fight, Bush's bluster is coming apart. With the Democrats unwilling to roll over he must fall back on the authority he actually has, the veto, not the fake authority he has been claiming, the signing statement.

This brings me to something I've been wondering about for a while now. Why signing statements? That is, why not not-signing statements? Consider what the US Constitution has to say about bills becoming law in Article I, section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Note the part I highlighted. If the President doesn't sign the bill it becomes law anyway. So the President could just as well not sign the bill, state why he thinks it should not be signed and let it become law that way. Such a move would be more consistent with the constitution and more honest. I believe that Bush has chosen instead to use signing statements in order to maintain the fantasy that his signature is needed for the bill to become law (it is not) and to assert an equal or even superior status to Congress in making law. It is this fantasy authority of his that is coming down now that the Democrats are asserting themselves in Congress.

Understand that I am not claiming that Bush's power and authority are going to immediately vanish. His fantastic claims to authority are falling away, his actual authority, as President, will remain and be effective. Also, he will continue to fight for his war, he will not be giving up. He will continue to fight because that is all he has, his unwillingness to ever change his mind. That may seem an odd claim, but there appears to be about 20-30% of the population that admires that steadfastness above all else, and at this point, that steadfastness is all Bush has. If he gives it up, he is nothing to everybody.

Authorization of Use of Force

Well the House is warming up to advance a non-binding resolution expressing that body's opposition to Bush's escalation. While a binding resolution would be better, this is a good first step and should go better than the effort has so far in the Senate. The Democrats in the House enjoy a substantially larger majority. One concern with regard to the various proposals for these resolutions, whether binding or not, is the expected Presidential veto. The House, and more certainly the Senate, will not have the two-thirds majority needed to override anytime soon. Republican disaffection is growing, but not that fast.

Of growing concern now, of course, is the possibility that this Administration will launch some attack on Iran. There is widespread agreement that the Administration has no such authority to do so, but this Administration has not shown much concern over such things as appropriate authority. Some consideration is being given now as well to an official expression from the Congress that the White House does not have that Authority. Again one must consider that any such expression is, unless I'm very much mistaken, subject to veto.

One option that might help get around this occurred to me recently. Could the Democrats not propose to grant the authorization of force against Iran, and vote it down? The failure of a bill to pass the Congress is not subject to veto (although it would not shock me to see this White House try to claim otherwise) so the rejection would stand. There would then be a very official statement that Congress had considered that authorization and denied it.

It seems like a move worthy of consideration, but I have seen no mention of it elsewhere.

Oversight

The Washington Post has a short piece describing how congress has been abandoning its oversight role. As I discussed in an earlier post, the role of oversight, or critical review, of what the other branches are doing, is an essential role that is absolutely necessary for government to work properly. We will only get good policy if the branches of government seriously check each others work. The trend described in the article is something we should be very concerned about. The trend has certainly accelerated with the current congress and current administration. Congressional oversight of the administration is a shadow of what it once was, typified by the congressional Katrina investigation which is shaping up to be a whitewash.

This trend is now not only affecting congress, but the executive has abandoned its oversight role as well. Bush has vetoed exactly zero pieces of legislation. It the branches of government do not check each others work we can only expect poor results. And we are seeing that in the aftermath of the Iraq war, the aftermath of Katrina, the bloated highway bill, and the rest of this current government's efforts.