Run RNC

The RNC and the White House want it both ways on the e-mail issue. Law states that staffers doing political work cannot use their White House email, which is why they all have parallel RNC emails (and also why every Congressman has an office just off the Hill to do political/fund-raising work). Hence, if you're doing the work of the people (all of them, not just Republicans) then you use the White House address, if its political, or personal use something different. Everyone knows this, its the law. Using the WH address gives you protections, but is also more public, and you have to obey the law. Using another address surrenders protections, but is more private, and you have to obey the law. Assuming everyone obeyed the law, RNC emails are just another private account independent of the WH. Why should the WH care? Clearly they weren't under WH jurisdiction, or they would have had a WH address. So why then is the White House insisting on having all relevant RNC email's reviewed by WH lawyers before Congress gets them? The way I understand it, the RNC is a private organization with open membership. Clearly some members of the RNC work for the WH, just as some members of AAA work for the WH. However, the way I remember my high school civics, Congress and the White House are equal. So why, in an investigation of a NGO, should the White House get preferred treatment? Unless, of course, WH staffers and RNC staffers were co-mingling their jobs. Maybe giving the RNC inside information or extra access to the WH, who knows? Just speculation, but my bet is that the 5 million "lost" emails aren't all related to Gonzo's woe's. More likely, there are/were many, many embarrassing and potentially illegal emails among and besides the AG references.

But in a legal investigation, the WH can't jump in front of a subpoena just because it may be embarrassed by its own actions. Equal branches boys and girls.

Gone-zales

Looks like AG Alberto Gonzales is in trouble, and maybe even from the GOP. Before getting to the meat of this post (USA PATRIOT and the Potted Plants), I'm a bit confused by AG Gonzales' statements in his press brief on March 13th. In one part he says,

I believe in accountability. Like every CEO of every major organization, I am responsible for what happens at the Department of Justice. I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.

But at the end he says,

I stand by the decision. Again, all political appointees can be removed by the President of the United States for any reason. I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision. Thank you very much.

I'm just confused. If mistakes were made, but the decisions were the right ones, then what were the mistakes?

He also adds,

I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.

Good to know that he and OJ are out looking for the real killers.

From what I can gather, the decision to fire the state AG's was a fall back from firing all of them. Why the move to fire any of them? Best guesses are that the White House was moving to take advantage of a USA PATRIOT ACT provision that allows the Pres to nominate new AG's for indefinite terms while avoiding the "Advise and Consent" clause of that pesky ol' US Constitution. The kicker is that the new power came in the USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005. That's right, this is the improved version of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Yup, congress neutered itself even more in 2005. What's Potted Plant to do? Just a suggestion, but a potted plat becomes a man when it acts. Scrap the USA PATRIOT ACT, an act that clearly no one has full read, no one fully understands, and an act that clearly has provisions in it that have nothing to do with terrorism, and strip congress of its constitutional authority. Pass a series of bills, succinctly written with well defined purposes.

As always, when you give someone lots of power, you can't be surprised when they use it. Checks and Balances is the cornerstone of our system of Government. The way it's been destroyed is not only criminal, I think its treasonous.

Is Congress a "Potted Plant?"

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) made the following statement about Congress,

"We are not a potted plant watching the administration function, we are part of the decision-making process"

Proving once again, that when you have to tell people you're important, you're not. A little history.

In 2002 Congress passed HJ 114 and SJ 45, or as their collectively known, the "Congress is a potted plant" bills. See these were the bills that gave W unobstructed ability to do whatever he feels necessary as long as its a "national security" issue. And what are the parameters of national security? Let's take a look at the docs. "National security" is hereby defined to include the pursuit (by military force and invasion) of "international peace and security", and such interests will now include the entire "Persian Gulf region."

So Rep Lantos, Congress is, in fact, a potted plant. Like the old saying, if it sits and does nothing like a plant and if its as smart as a plant, its a plant. Your a plant. You gave up all your rights to advise, consent, shape, command, etc when you passed those bills. My bet is that, like the Patriot Act, few in congress actually read the bills (absolutely kills me), but someone wrote them, and whoever did (I'm looking at you White House) knew what was in them.

I'm pretty sure SOH Nancy Pelosi didn't read them. She keeps running around saying,

"I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

The way I read the above bills, he does. See Iran lies within the area called "The Persian Gulf" and W has unfettered authority to do whatever in that region. I get that US high schoolers are famous for not knowing geography and low reading scores, but I expect better from the SOH. Maybe no president before could go into Iran without explicit congressional consent, but no president before was lucky enough to have a congress filled with one group of people who put party above all and would never dream of countering W, and another who were so incompetent and afraid that they would never dream of countering W. And as I pointed out in earlier post, it will take 2/3 votes to over-ride W's veto of any bill taking this authority away.

To make matters worse for the dems, if possible, is that every week or so they get all vocal about taking control, setting time-lines, linking progress, holding back money, limiting W's ability to go into Iran, and every week they back off all that and just pass the bill the White House wants. It seems like the only courage they have is the courage to continually go through this humiliating song and dance.

The latest retreat, where the dems stripped a bill of language requiring W to come to congress before attacking Iran sums up how confused they are about what W can and can't do given previous bills.

One, if, as Pelosi asserts, W doesn't have the authority to act without congress' consent, why was this language even necessary? Second, its yet another example of the Dems talking tough, then retreating when it looks like it won't be a cake walk. So either Pelosi is running around trying to sound like her congress is relevant when it isn't, or she enjoys pulling tough sounding provisions out of bills, maybe even both. I dunno, maybe she likes looking weak and uniformed to the American public and to the White House. Bottom line, the Democratically controlled congress has yet to put any pressure on either its Republican members or the White House. When the GOP had control they did a masterful job of putting pressure on the dems, and the dems always caved. Maybe my conservative friends are right. Maybe the dems have no guts. They didn't have the guts to stand up to GOP pressure when they were the minority, and they haven't shown the guts to withstand any pressure from the GOP now that the dems are the majority. It just looks like anything that resembles a "stumbling block" causes the dems to retreat.

Maybe Lantos is right. Maybe the dems aren't a potted plant, a potted plant can at least get in the way occasionally. The dems are more like mice. Just scrambling to stay alive, nibbling the left-overs in the pantry, and running whenever something enters the room.

ARLEN SPECTER TO THE RESCUE!

hooray. Everything's going to be better now. woo hoo.

I would feel much better about this comment if it didn't come from Sen Arlen "The Courts will clean-up this patently un-Constitution bill up so I voted for it" Specter. For what it's worth he said,

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."

Totally agree with the statement, I just don't think it will go anywhere given Specter's history as a total coward.