President Bush is threatening to veto at least nine out of twelve that were passed by Congressional Democrats before the August recess. On Thursday, Bush slammed Democrats for what he called :
"That's a lot of money -- even for career politicians in Washington."
Maybe the President and his party forget that when they had control of the Executive and Legislative branches, spending was significantly out of control. In fact, according to the -- a conservative think tank -- increased by 23% between 2001 and 2006:
Some conservatives have questioned Bush's commitment to fiscaldiscipline, noting — as the Heritage Foundation did in a March report —that federal spending increased 23% after inflation from 2001 to 2006.Bush did not veto any appropriations bills passed by RepublicanCongresses, which included hikes for defense, homeland security,entitlements, education and thousands of special-interest items calledearmarks that are tacked onto spending bills at lawmakers' requests.
And now suddenly Bush pretends to be shocked when Democrats try to pass appropriations bills, which must be signed into law or else the government cannot function.
The Republican House and Senate campaigns will attempt to make this a big issue in 2008. They will say that spending has increased even more under the Democratic Congress. That might turn out to be true -- but only because in the waining weeks before Democrats took the gavel, Republicans decided not to pass and instead leave them for the Democrats to deal with. Because these burdens were given to the Democrats, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were left with two options:
Don't pass the appropriations bills, and let funding for federal agencies run out.
Pass the appropriations bills, but get unfairly blamed for spending increases in Washington.
They picked the second option, and are getting blamed even though the government must get funding in order to function.
Nancy Pelosi is getting quite a bit of coverage from the conservative mediaand the Republicans regarding her "unauthorized" diplomatic trip toSyria. First of all a republican was part of the group that went.
Newt Gingrich had a bit of his hypocrisy exposed on FOX News Sunday by ChrisWallace. During the Clinton administration, Speaker Gingrich took a trip toChina
Articlefrom : ""
Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American PrimeMinister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speakertravelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from theClinton administration's
"
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a timewhen U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S.security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian militaryofficials
The hypocrisy needs to stop. I don't care what side of the aisle it is comingfrom, it just needs to stop. It hurts the country and it accomplishes nothing(in the end)
Gee, what a surprise! The Republican-led House Ethics Committee finished its investigation into the Mark Foley sex scandal, and that nothing was unethical about the way the Republican leadership handled it:
The panel voted to endorse an 89-page report recommending “no furtherinvestigative or disciplinary proceedings,†against anyone inconnection with the scandal, which is believed by many to havecontributed to heavy Republican losses in the November election.
It comes despite the fact that this same committee even admitted that a Republican House clerk had been the Foley issue since 1995:
The committee concluded thatHouse Clerk Jeff Trandahl"repeatedly tried to address Rep. Foley's conduct," beginning with his1995 election to the House, and "directly confronted Foley on thematter approximately ten times at various places for various reasons."
Dennis Hastert, the leader of the Republican majority, was found innocent by a Republican majority in the committee. How would we have expected any other ruling but this? This is where power can be such an asset.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert is not out of the woods yet. Late Friday night, reported that Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's Chief Counsel, told investigators to end their probe into the Mark Foley emails last year:
Two former House committee investigators who were examining Capitol Hill security upgrades said a senior aide to Speaker
J. Dennis Hastert
hindered their efforts before they were abruptly ordered to stop their probe last year.
The former Appropriations Committee investigators said Ted Van DerMeid, Hastert’s chief counsel, resisted from the start the inquiry,which began with concerns about mismanagement of a secret securityoffice and later probed allegations of bid-rigging and kickbacks fromcontractors to a Defense Department employee.
Ronald Garant and a second Appropriations Committee investigator whoasked not to be identified said Van Der Meid engaged in “screamingmatches†with investigators and told at least one aide not to talk tothem. Van Der Meid also prohibited investigators from visiting certainsites to check up on the effectiveness of the work, the investigatorssaid.
This comes as the House Ethics Committee is its investigation into what the House Republican leadership knew and when they knew it.
It is a fundamental rule that politicians in positions of power will help destroy one of their own allies if it means obtaining more power. That is precisely what is unfolding right now between House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Senate Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH).
Although they are both from the GOP, the Foley scandal has opened up an intra-party cat fight between the two. The fight is over when Hastert knew about the Foley emails? Speaker Hastert claims he did not learn about Congressman Mark Foley's emails until the spring of this year. Boehner, however, strongly disagrees, and says he told Hastert years before.
On a Chicago radio station earlier this month, Boehner put most of the on Speaker Hastert:
"My position," he continued, "is, it's in his corner. It's hisresponsibility. The clerk of the House that runs the page program [and]the page board, all report to the Speaker, and I believed it had beendealt with."
While what John Boehner said might be true, he has some explaining to do as well. Throughout the Foley aftermath, has been anything but consistent. On September 29th, the week the Foley scandal broke, Boehner the Washington Post that he spoke with Hastert -- only to call the post again one day later and tell them that he actually couldn't remember, forcing the newspaper to a story it published that Saturday. Then, just one week later, he went on the Chicago radio station to say that he did indeed tell Hastert. So obviously Boehner's story changes depending on which way the political winds blow.
Both Boehner and Hastert are doing damage control -- but it is within plain sight, making it even more obvious. Boehner knows that if Hastert is forced out, then he will be next in line for the Speaker position. But because Boehner keeps altering his story, he might be lumped in with Hastert and kicked out of the GOP leadership. A couple of weeks back, I was told by a party source via email that Congressman (R-CA), currently the House Majority Whip, could be bumped up to the Speaker position because he has done a careful but spectacular job of distancing himself from the Foley scandal.
Of course, Democrats would remind us that this GOP leadership fight won't mean a thing if Congress changes hands this November, ensuring once and for all that neither Hastert nor Boehner will have any say in policy for at least the next two years.
Remember earlier this year when House Speaker Dennis Hastert called the the office of Democratic Congressman William Jefferson unconstitutional? We all thought out loud, "Why would a Republican Speaker defend a Democratic Congressman?" We now we have the answer.
As Hotline Blog's John Mercurio writes, Hastert wanted to so no such raids on Republicans could take place right before the election. Did Hastert know the Foley and Weldon scandals would unfold this year?:
Much was made of Hastert's unusual decision to side with House Dems in 5/06 and criticize the FBI raid of Rep. Bill Jefferson's (D-LA) Rayburn House offices. Why was Hastert siding with Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and against the GOP-led Bush admin. But has anyone drawn a connection between Hastert's defense of Jefferson and the Mark Foley scandal?In other words, was Hastert defending Jefferson against the FBI in 5/06because he feared that a legal precedent would be set, allowing the FBIto raid offices like, say, Foley's and perhaps, Weldon's?
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, and this is certainly not one.
Hell has officially frozen over. Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi and some conservative bloggers actually agree on something: House Speaker Dennis Hastert should resign.
blog is demanding that Dennis Hastert quit. Blogger Paul Hollrah writes that Hastert has "failed as a leader," and "appears to approach the job of Speaker as if he were managing a business enterprise from the corporate board room."
As Nancy Pelosi reiterated the , the Speaker still questions all the fuss. "I haven't done anything wrong," yesterday. However, last week that he handled the Foley situation poorly and the buck stops with him.
This inconsistency is hurting Hastert's reputation. According to conservative columnist , Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) told Hastert to stay away -- this after the Speaker had planned to hold a fundraiser for the Kentucky Republican. The reports that Dennis Hastert has backed out of a big time GOP fundraiser at the house of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The question is whether Hastert will survive another four weeks? GOP game-planning last week concluded that the party would be better off if he stayed put. Now all of a sudden, are re-thinking that strategy.
However, from the perspectives of most Democratic strategists, the party would love for him to stay put.
conducted a poll that finds a clear majority of the country wants House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign for his role in covering up the Marl Foley predator scandal:
Based on what you know right now, do you think Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert should remain in his position as the Speaker of the House? Do you think he should resign as Speaker of the House but remain a member of Congress? Or do you think he should completely resign from Congress?
Remain Speaker - 26% Resign Leadership - 20% Resign From Congress - 45% Not Sure - 9%
It's not the scandal, it's the cover-up that comes back to bite politicians. Most Americans don't want Hastert to get away with it.
On this blog, I always try my best to write as a political science student first, activist second. This entry is no different.
With regard to the Mark Foley scandal that has erupted into a referendum on House Speaker Dennis Hastert's secretive, ultra-partisan leadership style, just about everyone on both sides of the political spectrum is calling for his resignation. I think he should resign because his actions of keeping the under partisan wraps, as opposed to taking genuine action as a House leader, sets a bad precedent for politicians that are in positions of trust.
But the fact of the matter is that Speaker . To that, I say great! The longer he refuses to take responsibility for his actions, the more that the media will cover it, and the greater likelihood that swing voters will show up to the polls on November 7th with an anti-Republican feeling in their stomach.
Let's face it: strategically, the Republicans need a new face. President is at 40% or less. I said earlier this year that if I were a GOP strategist, I would encourage Bush to get rid of Cheney and bring in a new face like (Sen-AZ) or (Sen-SC). Replacing Tom DeLay was a step in the right direction -- although as of late, new House Majority leader John Boehner has been in hot water over comments on Hardball that . about the Foley emails -- saying last Friday that Hastert told him about them, only to say the opposite a few days later. But getting back to the point: other than Boehner, the GOP has had an old look for too long. They are reluctant to change. Voters have every reason to perceive them as arrogant and power-hungry. Hastert's last minute lunge to maintain power only adds legitimacy to that point.
So, once again, if the Republicans were smart they would completely reorganize their leadership. This would shift media attention away from the Foley scandal and more towards their fresh new look. Maybe it might be too late for that. But the longer that Hastert holds onto his position, the better it will be for the Democrats. And if Hastert is still House Speaker on November 7th, that would be a dream come true for any Democratic House challenger.
Ultimately though, Hastert will probably use this weekend as one last attempt to win back House conservatives. As they will likely tell him, he is hurting the party by staying. That is why Hastert will probably not remain House Speaker through all of next week. However, Democratic strategists are hoping he stays put.
In less than one week, the bottom has fallen out of the Republicans' hopes of holding onto both chambers of Congress. The Mark Foley (R-FL) scandal that broke last Friday is sending shockwaves through Capitol Hill, forcing vulnerable Republican House incumbents to abandon their senior leadership and go their separate ways in the final four and a half weeks of the campaign.
And now there is late word that Dennis Hastert will likely resign before this time next week. On the MSNBC show Countdown with Keith Olbermann, correspondent he spoke with a number of House Republicans, all of whom said that by this time next week Dennis Hastert will no longer be the Speaker. Quite simply, he is being forced out by his party because of the fact that for two years, and was inconsistent in responding to the charges.
But it's not just Dennis Hastert. (R-NY), Chairman of the NRCC, is in hot water for also knowing about the emails and keeping them under partisan wraps. Adding insult to injury, that Mark Foley donated to the NRCC earlier this summer. And then during a press conference, Reynolds intentionally used about a dozen , creating an angry buzz even among conservative bloggers. Also at that press conference, Reynolds managed to deflect blame onto Hastert.
Page Board head himself as well, but will have a harder time in doing so because he secretly kept the information about Foley from the ranking Democrat on the board -- proving once and for all that this was a partisan cover-up. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership not to delete any of the electronic communications, some of which are on the official . Even with former Speaker Newt , as are most conservative talk-radio personalities, mainstream America is outraged.
All of this chaos led to come to the most rational conclusion: there is no way that Dennis Hastert can survive much longer and maintain his Speaker position. Even many want him to step down, such as this one:
"I don't see how they can say that hedidn't know about it now cause it sounds like two of his closestassociates are saying that they gave him fair warning," says Hastertconstituent Randy Blecha.
But there is an even more obvious reason why Hastert won't last much longer. In U.S. House races all over the country, Democratic challengers are demanding that their Republican opponents come out and call for Hastert's resignation. This will likely create a domino effect of opposition to Hastert within his own party. Democratic House candidates in Washington state, for example, sent letters to their Republican opponents asking them to get rid of Hastert.
So who will replace Dennis Hastert? It likely won't be House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Last Friday, that he was informed about the emails, only to quickly change his mind a few days later. NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds, as I mentioned above, is also part of the scandal. So who is left? According to emails that were sent to me by two Republican Congressional aides in Washington, it looks like Majority Whip (R-CA) and (IL) are the two front-runners to become the next Speaker of the House.
Down , many Republican voters say they will not vote in that race -- giving the edge to :
Voters like Braun, who cast their ballots for Foley two years ago,face what could be an emotional issue in the voting booth. Foley's nameremains on the ballot, so anyone wanting to cast a vote for hisreplacement, state Rep. Joe Negron, will have to mark the ballot forFoley.
"I won't do it. I won't vote for him," said Braun. "I'll just skip that race."
In my view, unless Bush miraculously finds Osama bin Laden or starts launching air strikes on Iran or North Korea, we are looking at a likely Democratic landslide in at least the House and maybe the Senate as well.
Recent Comments