Krauthammer & Constitutionalism

Charles Krauthammer, in his column today, explains the larger reasons for reading the Constitution in the House to start the 112th Congress. He also has a warning for the disparaging left. Yes, the move was symbolism, but it was anything but empty symbolism. Rather, it is symbolism attached to an ever growing, still inchoate movement that centers on returning government to something approaching the view of the Founders as expressed in the Constitution:

. . . Americans are in the midst of a great national debate over the power, scope and reach of the government established by that document. The debate was sparked by the current administration's bold push for government expansion - a massive fiscal stimulus, Obamacare, financial regulation and various attempts at controlling the energy economy. This engendered a popular reaction, identified with the Tea Party but in reality far more widespread, calling for a more restrictive vision of government more consistent with the Founders' intent.

Call it constitutionalism. In essence, constitutionalism is the intellectual counterpart and spiritual progeny of the "originalism" movement in jurisprudence. Judicial "originalists" (led by Antonin Scalia and other notable conservative jurists) insist that legal interpretation be bound by the text of the Constitution as understood by those who wrote it and their contemporaries. Originalism has grown to become the major challenger to the liberal "living Constitution" school, under which high courts are channelers of the spirit of the age, free to create new constitutional principles accordingly.

What originalism is to jurisprudence, constitutionalism is to governance: a call for restraint rooted in constitutional text. Constitutionalism as a political philosophy represents a reformed, self-regulating conservatism that bases its call for minimalist government - for reining in the willfulness of presidents and legislatures - in the words and meaning of the Constitution.

Hence that highly symbolic moment on Thursday when the 112th House of Representatives opened with a reading of the Constitution. Remarkably, this had never been done before - perhaps because it had never been so needed. The reading reflected the feeling, expressed powerfully in the last election, that we had moved far, especially the past two years, from a government constitutionally limited by its enumerated powers to a government constrained only by its perception of social need.

The most galvanizing example of this expansive shift was, of course, the Democrats' health-care reform, which will revolutionize one-sixth of the economy and impose an individual mandate that levies a fine on anyone who does not enter into a private contract with a health insurance company. Whatever its merits as policy, there is no doubting its seriousness as constitutional precedent: If Congress can impose such a mandate, is there anything that Congress may not impose upon the individual?

The new Republican House will henceforth require, in writing, constitutional grounding for every bill submitted. A fine idea, although I suspect 90 percent of them will simply make a ritual appeal to the "general welfare" clause. Nonetheless, anything that reminds members of Congress that they are not untethered free agents is salutary.

But still mostly symbolic. The real test of the Republicans' newfound constitutionalism will come in legislating. Will they really cut government spending? Will they really roll back regulations? Earmarks are nothing. Do the Republicans have the courage to go after entitlements as well?

In the interim, the cynics had best tread carefully. Some liberals are already disdaining the new constitutionalism, denigrating the document's relevance and sneering at its public recitation. They sneer at their political peril. In choosing to focus on a majestic document that bears both study and recitation, the reformed conservatism of the Obama era has found itself not just a symbol but an anchor.

Constitutionalism as a guiding political tendency will require careful and thoughtful development, as did jurisprudential originalism. But its wide appeal and philosophical depth make it a promising first step to a conservative future.

The left has, for decades, used an activist judiciary to amend the Constitution and alter our society, moving it ever further from that envisioned by our Founders. I think that we are indeed at a tipping point. Let's hope this "first step" is one of very many.

Read More...

Summary only...

The 2010 Midterms and “Fundamental And Total Miscalculations”

From respected Democrat strategist Charlie Cook - enjoy:

Read More...

Summary only...

Sen. Jim DeMint's Christmas Gift To America

The procedural rules of Congress are nothing if not byzantine - and thus are the they a double edged sword to be exploited by both sides. And it may just be that Sen. Jim "Santa" DeMint, exploiting the rules, has put a present under the tree of every American. He has put a huge monkey wrench into Harry Reid's bum's rush of our country towards national suicide health care. This from Red State:

When Senator DeMint engineered, and Republican Leader McConnell actually objected to the appointment of the conferees, he was really handing the ball off to the left wingers — progressives if you will — and now they have their shot to either hold their own clan members who are against the Senate compromises and force them to vote No, or have their policy demands be ignored and take the crumbs from Senator Nelson’s and Senator Lieberman’s table.

Now, because of the Senator DeMint’s objection, unless the House votes for the Senate bill unchanged — which is highly unlikely (see below) — then the Senate ObamaCare bill must be amended on the House floor to gain the votes they need to pass it on the House floor. And because of Senator DeMint’s objection to the appointment of the conferees, there will be no conference, or conference report.

If the House amends the Senate bill, they then have to send the amended bill back to the Senate — where all the 60 vote margin cloture votes still apply — cloture on the motion to proceed, and cloture to end the filibuster and cloture on any amendment.

Do I believe that this objection to the appointment of the conferees will kill ObamaCare? Yes, if the progressives or those 64 House Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment do not roll over and play dead.

This monkey wrench may explain why the White House is putting out the word that it wants the health care bill to pass the House after the State of the Union, in February.

You all can decide whether the DeMint objection could be the kiss of death to ObamaCare, but I offer the following to convince you that it is . . .

Do read the rest of the post. This ought to make for a brighter Christmas Day.

Read More...

Summary only...

A New Era Of Bipartisanship

Especially in the House, there’s too much of this attitude that if it’s bipartisan, that just means you didn’t negotiate hard enough.

- Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), quoted in the NYT article, 45 Centrist Democrats Protest Secrecy of Health Care Talks

Read More...

Summary only...

Barney Frank In Bed With Fannie Mae

Barney Frank, one of the prime architects of our nation's fiscal destruction, spent the last two decades in bed with Fannie Mae, both figuratively and, it would seem, literally.
____________________________________________________

This from an exceptional article by Jeff Poor at the Business & Media Institute, documenting some of Barney Frank's efforts to drive our nation into the subprime swamp while maintaining an intimate relationship with a Fannie Mae executive:

Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.

The media coverage of Frank’s coziness with Fannie Mae and his pro-Fannie Mae stances has been lacking.

. . . The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.

Frank was and remains a stalwart defender of Fannie Mae, which is now under FBI investigation along with its sister organization Freddie Mac, American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AIG) and Lehman Brothers (NYSE:LEH) – all recently participants in government bailouts. But Frank has derailed efforts to regulate the institution, as well as denying it posed any financial risk. Frank’s office has been unresponsive to efforts by the Business & Media Institute to comment on these potential conflicts of interest.

While the relationship reportedly ended 10 years ago, Frank was serving on the House Banking Committee the entire 10 years they were together. The committee is the primary House body which along with the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has jurisdiction over the government-sponsored enterprises.

He has served on the committee since becoming a congressman in 1981 and became the ranking Democrat on the committee in 2003. He became chairman of the committee, now called the House Financial Services Committee, in 2007.

Moses was the assistant director for product initiatives at Fannie Mae and had been at the forefront of relaxing lending restrictions at the company for rural customers, according to the Feb. 23, 1998, issue of National Mortgage News (NMN).

“Herb Moses, who helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs, has left the mortgage industry,” Darryl Hicks wrote for NMN. “Mr. Moses - whose last day was Feb. 13 - spent the past seven years at Fannie Mae, most recently as director of housing initiatives. Over the course of time, he played an instrumental role in developing the company’s Title One and 203(k) home improvement lending programs.”

Hicks explained in his story how Moses orchestrated a collaborative effort between Fannie Mae and the Department of Agriculture.

“The Dartmouth grad also played a crucial role in brokering a relationship between Fannie Mae and the Department of Agriculture,” Hicks wrote. “This led to the creation of Fannie Mae’s rural housing program where the secondary marketing agency agreed to purchase small farm loans insured through the department.”

While Moses served at Fannie Mae and was Frank’s partner, Frank was actively working to support GSEs, according to several news outlets.

In 1991, Frank and former Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., lobbied for Fannie to soften rules on multi-family home mortgages although those dwellings showed a default rate twice that of single-family homes, according to the Nov. 22, 1991, Boston Globe.

. . . Moses left Fannie in 1998 to start his own pottery business. National Mortgage News called Moses a “mortgage guru” and said he developed “many of Fannie Mae's affordable housing and home improvement lending programs. Moses ended his relationship with Frank just months after he left Fannie.

Even after the relationship ended, however, Frank was a staunch defender of Fannie Mae even as other experts suggested there were serious problems building in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

According to an article by Kathleen Day in the Oct. 8, 2003, Washington Post, Frank opposed giving the Bush administration the right to approve or disapprove business activities that “could pose risk to the taxpayers.” He told the Post he worried the Treasury Department “would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks.”

Just a month before, Frank had aggressively thwarted reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated,” a gross miscalculation some five years later with costs estimated to be in the hundreds of billions.

“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

. . . In a July 23 op-ed, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot put the blame for the GSEs’ collapse firmly on the members of the liberal establishment who took money from Freddie and Fannie. “Fan and Fred also couldn't prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left... This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. [Paul] Krugman and the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein in the press.”

. . . [O]n Sept. 17, 2008, former Bush administration Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove elaborated on the Bush administration’s efforts to curb abuses at the two GSEs in 2003. He told Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes” that Frank was among the most aggressive opponents of White House attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“All of this bad stuff on Wall Street happened because people got greedy and the greed started at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Rove said. “And I know this because five years ago, the administration was alerted by the regulator, James Lockhart, that there was insufficient authority and that these institutions – particularly Fannie – were out of control.”

Rove said the Bush administration’s efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie were opposed by congressional Democrats – specifically Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

“And I got to tell you, for five years, I was part of an effort at the White House to fight this and our biggest opponents on the Hill who blocked this every step of the way were people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. And Fannie and Freddie are the $200 billion contagion at the center of this.”

Frank has been quick to blame deregulation for some of the problems in the financial environment, as he did on Bloomberg television’s Sept. 19 “Political Capital with Al Hunt.” However, as earmark crusader Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. pointed out – it’s not deregulation, but it was the structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that had been guarded by Frank and other members of Congress.

“Some people point at deregulation,” Flake said to the Business & Media Institute on Sept. 23. “It’s not deregulation at all. We have for far too long shielded Fannie and Freddie for example, with the implicit and now explicit guarantee. I just found it humorous.”

Flake specifically named Frank as one of the members behind letting allegations of transgressions at the two GSEs for slipping by without oversight from Congress.

“Just a few minutes ago, a reporter was asking me about this and saying, ‘Barney Frank is saying that’s just – because there were allegations,’ correct ones – ‘that Fannie and Freddie have been the playground for politicians for years and now the other side is saying Fannie and Freddie were just a small part of this and this goes far beyond.’ It does, but these same people a couple of weeks ago said, ‘You got to bail out Fannie and Freddie because they touch everything out there. They touch nearly every mortgage out there.’ And because of that explicit guarantee – that we would come and bail them out, nobody has been subject to market discipline.”

. . . The red flags were raised long before the government bailed out the two GSEs in August 2008. The first egregious scandal involving Fannie Mae occurred in 2004. A 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial was first to point out claims in an OFHEO report that showed accounting malpractices by the GSE.

“For years, mortgage giant Fannie Mae has produced smoothly growing earnings. And for years, observers have wondered how Fannie could manage its inherently risky portfolio without a whiff of volatility, the Oct. 4, 2004, editorial, “Fannie Mae Enron?” said. “Now, thanks to Fannie’s regulator, we know the answer. The company was cooking the books. Big time.”

Read the entire article. One wonders if Barney Frank's relationship with a Fannie Mae executive was not a huge conflict of interest? Irregardless, Frank's now claiming that the subprime crisis is wholly the responsiblity of Republicans or that the problem is deregulation is insipid. Barney Frank would have us believe he bears no responsibility for his own lifetime of actions aimed at lowering lending standards, driving us into the subprime swamp, and doing all he could to - succesfully - keep us there. Further, he would have America ignore the fact that all of the policies leading to the subprime crisis were put in place by Democrats.

(H/T Dr. Sanity)

Read More...

Summary only...

Dems, Democracy & Oil

Energy is at the top of issues facting America today. There are two competing visions of how to approach this problem. As the Washington Post asks today, why not debate the issue and have a vote on it? Wouldn't that be both the democratic and ethical way to handle this problem in a democracy? But then again, who ever accused our current crop of far left Democrats holding the reigns of power of either embracing democracy or placing ethical concerns over partisan ones.
____________________________________________________

This from the Washington Post:

WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? "What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy," she said yesterday when asked that very question. "What we're saying is, 'Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.' . . . It is the economic life of America's families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we're saying is, 'What can we do that is constructive?' "

If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation's energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn't mean the country shouldn't consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling -- environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate?

When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?

. . . If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote?

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Case Study in Republican Suicide

The Farm Bill has always been problematic. Agricultural policy in America is a patchwork of protectionism, payoffs and pork that skews production and marks the worst of democratic government. And this year's Farm Bill is a particularly egregious example of that policy. But worse is that it will pass into law with the support of not only the Republican party, but the leadership of our Congressional Republicans. Everything that is wrong with today's Republican Party is summed up in the story of how this bill attained a veto proof majority and relief from the ban on earmarks.
________________________________________________________

This from Robert Novack today in the Washington Post:

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor last Wednesday as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading."

Ryan's fellow reformer Jeff Flake of Arizona, 45 and in his fourth term, is less cautious about defying the leadership and has been kept off key committees. On Wednesday, he said of a $300 billion bill that raises farm subsidies and is filled with non-farm pork, "Sometimes, here in Washington, we tend to drink our own bath water and believe our own press releases."

A bill that raises spending 44 percent above last year's level has been approved by a majority of both Senate and House Republicans, dooming any chance of sustaining President Bush's promised veto. . . .

George W. Bush was just as ambivalent. In 2002, he signed a massive farm bill. But with Democrats now in control of Congress, Bush preaches the old-time religion. Addressing the House Republican caucus behind closed doors at the White House on May 7, he disclosed that he would veto the farm bill, then implied it was all right if members "voted their districts" -- that is, if the "aggies" supported the bill. This message was pressed on his colleagues by Rep. Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee.

. . . There was never any hope [of sustaining a vetor] in the Senate, where Republican leader Mitch McConnell not only supported the farm bill but also earmarked a tax provision benefiting horse farms in his state of Kentucky. But in the House, Republican leader John Boehner always has been anti-pork, even if he's been passive about exhorting other Republicans to follow his example.

On May 9, Flake sent Boehner a candid letter: "We need more than individual members of the Republican leadership to state their opposition to the bill. We need the leadership to use its good offices to explain the importance of sustaining the president's veto as opposed to advising members to 'vote their districts.' " Last Tuesday, waiting four days before responding, Boehner rejected the "vote their districts" escape for House Republicans: "I believe they should also vote their consciences, and cast their votes in a manner consistent with the small government principles upon which our party was founded." Boehner took the floor Wednesday to speak against the bill.

But nobody cracked the party whip. On the contrary, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. So did Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam, who was seen whipping for passage. House Republicans voted 100 to 91 to approve the bill (with only 15 Democrats opposed), assuring a veto override. Similarly, in the Senate, 35 Republicans voted for the bill. Only 13 Republicans voted no, and the only Democrats opposing it were Rhode Island's two senators.

That did not conclude the dismal Republican performance for the week, as lawmakers raced out Thursday for their usual long weekend. Seventeen pork-minded Republican senators gave the Democratic leadership necessary support to waive from the farm bill the brand-new ban of earmarks on a bill that had cleared both houses. . . .

Read the entire article. This is just sheer insanity.

Read More...

Summary only...

From The "What Were They Thinking Deptartment"

Our Congressional Republicans lost their moorings a long time ago. That said, the latest represents a comically sad degree of cluelessness.

As part of their scheme to slow down the business of the House in response to the latest Pelosi shennanigans, House Republicans have been calling procedural motions to reconsider after every vote. Yesterday, H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," was brought to the floor. One would think none but the brain dead would vote against that one. Yet following the initial vote on the resolution, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), made a motion to reconsider. As Dana Millibank describes what happened next, here but a few days shy of Mother's Day, "178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers."

Could they be any more tone deaf. Yes, this is meaningless in the grand scheme, but let it never be said that there is an overabundance of common sense amongst House Republicans. As Dana Millibank describes it, "Republicans vote against moms, no word yet on puppies, kittens."

Read More...

Summary only...

Petraeus & Crocker Draw The Line In The Sand

Wow. I just sat down and flipped on the House hearings, expecting not to hear much of anything different there than yesterday. Wrong. Petraeus and Crocker just laid out the cost of leaving Iraq in very explicit terms far beyond what they tactfully explained yesterday. I think they are getting tired and a bit exasperated.

I will post the transcript as soons as I can find it. In essence, Iran will make a move into Iraq. Al Qaeda will move back into Iraq. There will be chaos in the Middle East. The players in the Middle East will look upon the U.S. as unwilling to pay the price necessary to win and act towards us accordingly in the future with dire and long term consequences.

Read More...

Summary only...

Earmarks & Tin Ears

Congressional earmarks are perhaps the most emblamatic symbol of corruption and out of control spending by our government. Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has taken a clear and fiscally conservative stand against earmarks, promising not to sign a single bill with earmarks. Republicans lost the 2006 election in large measure because of their profligate spending and embrace of earmarks. So how idiotic is it that our Republican caucus is now going to break with McCain on his call for ending earmarks?

_________________________________________________________

Some things make you step back and wonder just how out of touch our leadership is in Washington. In both the House and the Senate, the Republican leadership talks about fiscal responsibility, but their actions tell another story entirely - one that suggests that they are fitting comfortably into their role as a minority party. This a few weeks ago from Instapundit on the problems in the House:

House Minority Leader John Boehner and his colleagues among the GOP leadership shanked one this week on the earmarks issue. A GOP slot opened up on the House Appropriations Committee, which signs off on the pet projects of lawmakers. If Boehner and company were serious about ending the earmark culture, which has badly undermined the credibility of Congress, they had a perfect man to fill the vacancy: Jeff Flake of Arizona. He has introduced more amendments to strike earmarks than any other member of the House, and putting him on the appropriations panel would have shown that the GOP was no longer just talking about earmark reform. Instead, Boehner and company settled on Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama.

Read the post here. Rep. Bonner is highly porcine. And in the Republican Senate, things are worse. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell - himself a heavy feeder at the earmark trough - is providing something far less than stellar leadership on this issue. This from the Hill explains the situation:

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) may return to Capitol Hill this month to support an amendment imposing a one-year ban on earmarks, a move that could set up a divisive clash within the GOP caucus.

McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has long broken with most of Congress, including the Senate Republican leadership, in seeking an end to the practice of inserting line items in spending bills for parochial projects. . . .

“I absolutely would support such an amendment – and abolish [earmarks] altogether,” McCain said, according to the Red State blog. “As I’ve said, I will veto any earmark project that comes across my desk.”

McCain is highlighting his opposition to earmarks as a way to appease conservatives skeptical of his candidacy because of other issues, such as his support for a legalization program for illegal immigrants and campaign finance restrictions and his initial opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts. On the stump, he has criticized his Democratic opponents, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), for individually securing almost $4 million and $100 million, respectively, for pet projects in the fiscal 2008 spending legislation enacted in December.

McCain, who secured no pet projects in the recent spending law, calls them a waste of taxpayer dollars.

“I really can’t tell you, traveling and campaigning now for many months, how dispirited the Bridge to Nowhere or earmark and pork-barrel spending was to our Republican base,” he said on this week's conference call. “We lost in 2006 not because of Iraq but because spending got out of control.”

. . . A McConnell aide said the Republican leader probably wouldn’t take a position on the DeMint measure until after the GOP task force issues its recommendations. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, McConnell secured $126 million in individual earmarks in the recently enacted spending law; his deputy and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl earmarked $2 million; the third-ranking Senate Republican leader, Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), inserted $6 million individually; GOP Policy Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) racked up almost $42 million in projects; and Conference Vice Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) got $14 million.

If McCain returns and lobbies his members to support an amendment that the leadership opposes, it could test rank-and-file members to support either their nominee or their Senate leaders.

“McCain is a Senate reformer who’s locked horns with our leadership for years,” a GOP aide said. “But now he’s our nominee and the old bulls will have to decide if their pork is more important than our party’s future.”

Read the article here. As Bluegrass Roots puts it:

So Mitch McConnell has a choice: (1) continue his campaign strategy of bragging about how how pork and government waste he can bring to KY in order to secure support for himself, or (2) go with "conservative" principles and end earmarks for the sake of John McCain and the Republican Party.

But when it comes to Mitch McConnell, one thing should be certain: the only thing he cares about is himself and his own power. McConnell does not have any principle and will do whatever is necessary for himself. So, as the GOP aide said in the story, Mitch indeed will have to "decide if (his) pork is more important than (his) party’s future."

Don't hold your breath folks, I can tell you how this story ends.

Read the post here. If Republicans succeed in recapturing either the Senate, the House, or the Presidency, it will be on the strength of John McCain's national security credentials and his very principled position to reform our government. It will be over the kicking and screaming of our current tin-eared Congressional Republican leadership. This really will be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party. As Ed Morrisey states:

A vote for fiscal responsibility will put McCain in conflict with the GOP? The party won’t back McCain on earmarks, even though his improbable come-from-behind victory for the party’s nomination shows exactly how seriously the Republican voters take fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability?

This shows the deafness that comes from living within the Beltway for too long. If the Republicans didn’t lose in 2006 because of Iraq, nor because of profligate spending, nor because of corruption generated from the nexus of political contributions and earmarking, exactly why do these geniuses think they’re in the minority? Misaligned stars in the firmament? Not only did the voters send a message on corruption, they had it delivered by FedEx with two signatures and a return receipt. Yet the survivors of 2006 somehow think that fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter.

Read the post here. This tin ear among our Congressional Republican leadership is setting up a battle that they cannot possibly win in the long run and that can only do untold damage to the conservative cause.

Read More...

Summary only...

President Bush Addresses The House's Failure To Vote On The FISA Reform Bill

The Senate, passed a bill that combined FISA reform and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that voluntarilly cooperated with our intelligence community in the wake of 9-11. With authorization for the FISA reform expiring at midnight last night, the House, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, refused to vote on the bill and instead disbanded for a ten day vacation. This was the topic of President Bush's weekly radio address.

On the day of President Bush's State of the Union speech, the Senate rescheduled their vote on the "Protect America Act" because they were concerned with whether or not it would pass, and if it did not, they did not want Bush beating them over the head with it in the State of the Union speech. Subsequently, the measure passed the Senate with a bipartisan and filibuster proof majority that beat off an attempt by Chris Dodd - supported by Barack Obama - to strip the retroactive immunity provision. The bill has sufficient support in the House to pass as is. But that has not stopped Nancy Pelosi - pandering to special interests - from refusing to schedule a vote.

This today from President Bush:

Good morning. At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire. Congress had the power to prevent this from happening, but chose not to.

The Senate passed a good bill that would have given our intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep us safe. But leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a House vote on the Senate bill, and then left on a 10-day recess.

Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them -- and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.

In addition, Congress has put intelligence activities at risk even when the terrorists don't change tactics. By failing to act, Congress has created a question about whether private sector companies who assist in our efforts to defend you from the terrorists could be sued for doing the right thing. Now, these companies will be increasingly reluctant to provide this vital cooperation, because of their uncertainty about the law and fear of being sued by class-action trial lawyers.

For six months, I urged Congress to take action to ensure this dangerous situation did not come to pass. I even signed a two-week extension of the existing law, because members of Congress said they would use that time to work out their differences. The Senate used this time productively -- and passed a good bill with a strong, bipartisan super-majority of 68 votes. Republicans and Democrats came together on legislation to ensure that we could effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. And they voted to provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in efforts to protect America after the attacks of 9/11.

The Senate sent this bill to the House for its approval. It was clear that if given a vote, the bill would have passed the House with a bipartisan majority. I made every effort to work with the House to secure passage of this law. I even offered to delay my trip to Africa if we could come together and enact a good bill. But House leaders refused to let the bill come to a vote. Instead, the House held partisan votes that do nothing to keep our country safer. House leaders chose politics over protecting the country -- and our country is at greater risk as a result.

House leaders have no excuse for this failure. . . .

Read the entire address here.

Read More...

Summary only...