Rep. Robert Wexler says President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence “is nothing short of (a) political quid pro quo, and Congress must go on record in strong opposition.”Wexler has drafted a resolution to censure Bush and plans to introduce it when Congress returns next Tuesday. A censure is a rare public reprimand but does not carry any other penalty. [...]
...the resolution will be sent to the House Judiciary Committee of which Wexler is a member. Since this is a “sense of the House” resolution, it would not require Senate approval.
Wexler said Bush’s “intervention is an unconscionable abuse of authority by George W. Bush, and Congress must step forward and express the disgust that Americans rightfully feel toward this contemptible decision. [...]
The last president who was censured was James Buchanan in 1860, so the odds are pretty long against this one being adopted.
The entire text of Wexler’s censure resolution is at the end of the piece.
The plus side to this is that it would put both Dems and Repubs on record. The downside? IMHO, it's cathartic, but that's about it. What do you think?
posted by GottaLaff @ 4:53 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Now CENSORING Bush is a whole other matter...
Look at what the administration has done - they have used the powers of the Executive branch in ways that were not intended by the founders to accomplish the goals of the neocons. Frankly, I think that this suggests the course of action that the Democrats need to take. Before I start, this strategy requires substantial unity on the part of the Democrats in Congress so ensuring their cooperation is imperative. My idea is that from now on, no legislation should pass out of the Congress without compromises from the Bush administration on Congressional investigations and actual reform of the Justice department and other agencies to reduce political appointee control to pre-Bush administration levels.
Basically, as we go through this year's budget process, the Congress should only budget "safe" money for "safe" programs. "Safe" meaning that the money cannot be used to further the obstruction of justice or expand the war on Iraq, Iran or the civil liberties of Americans. Every time a Bush administration desire is thwarted or left out of a bill, the Democrats need to note publicly that it is because this President is not cooperating with the Congress and so he gets no cooperation from the Congress. Anyone who has been a teenager who needed money or financial assistance from their parents knows that whoever controls the purse strings controls the agenda. Congress owns the freakin' purse strings. It is relatively easy for a minority to obstruct the workings of Congress (look at the recent activity or lack thereof in the Senate). It is even easier for the majority to obstruct an out of control President. What are the Republicans going to do then? Block the passage of the "safe" bills until Congress does the President's will? In that case they will own the obstructionism of 'safe" programs and can face the anger of the voters next fall.
Does anyone feel that Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Department should be funded unquestioningly after all of the evidence of wrongdoing that we have seen? Do the Democrats really fear that they will take a big hit if they restrain war spending? The reason the Congress has such low numbers appears to be because the public is counting on them to get the ball rolling on cleaning up this mess. The Republicans own the mess and are covered in it. Making concerted efforts to clean it up will be rewarded by the voters, not punished. When the Congress thwarts the people in obstructing the President you can get the results that newt Gingrich got in the 90's, but that doesn't mean that Congress always loses when it opposes a deeply unpopular President. I believe that they, and the Nation , have everything to gain by shutting this debacle down - NOW.
We are facing years of work to clean up the mess that the bush administration has made of our government, our reputation and our finances. Congress needs to make Mr. Bush start cleaning up his act so we can either get 18 months of advanced progress towards restoring the nation or at the very least, stop the damage from going further.
Taking practical, decisive action, as you're suggesting, is more effective than censure.
Censure would get some attention. My emotional side is doing cartwheels. My rational side is wishing that Congress would and could do something that would put a stop to this administration's horrific agenda.
I think it's a great plan. If I recall correctly, it's actually what Move-on had originally suggested doing with respect to Bill Clinton.
Perhaps if the Rethuglican's had been more receptive of Move-on's plans, move on would never have morphed into the giant evil entity they hate today.
The MoveOn.org domain name was registered on September 18, 1998 by computer entrepreneurs Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, the married cofounders of Berkeley Systems, an entertainment software company known for the flying toaster screen saver and the online game show "You Don't Know Jack." After selling the company in 1997, Blades and Boyd became concerned about the level of "partisan warfare in Washington" following revelations of President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. The MoveOn website was launched initially to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach Clinton. Initially called "Censure and Move On," it invited visitors to add their names to an online petition stating that "Congress must Immediately Censure President Clinton and Move On to pressing issues facing the country."
I think it's a great plan because it will be more than cathartic, the process, the vote, and the news coverage will help make it plain to Joe SixPack and Jane WineCooler that Bush was guilty of obstruction of justice, and this is not just Bush hatred that Hannity is claiming.
I agree with gottalaff.
Of course IF they can get censure through and actually get a vote on it by the do-nothings in Congress (BOTH sides of the aisle), it will be, at the least, a shot in the arm for people's mistrust of Government.
It won't make a bit of real difference, but it will feel good.
It's gonna take YEARS to undo what this psychotic monster has done to this country.
The Supreme Court alone will take decades. And both sides have to take responsibility for that one.
I still don't know quite how to deal with my anger over it.
My opinion? Let the investigations continue. I think Pelosi made a mistake when she said impeachment was "off the table". What she should have said was "we don't have any evidence yet to file articles of impeachment.
I hope they find something in these many investigations. To the arguments that it takes up too much of Congresses time and keeps from getting the peoples' work done I say bulls***. These politician can freaking multitask. That's what we pay them to do.
I think the White House is talking like they don't care, but the last thing that Bush wants to add to his already abysmal legacy is the fact that he was Censured. Not to mention, it may be the first step toward impeachment.
I agree with your Pelosi comment, Gimme.
And I am hoping like crazy that the investigations turn something up so solid that nobody can seriously go into denial about it.
Seriously - maybe this new Conyers hearing on the Libby commutation will get us somewhere.
My congressman Robert Wexler takes no prisoners. He was there with us hear in Florida in November 2000 and has recently gotten Republican governor Charlie Crist to agree to change all of the election machines in the entire state so that we have a paper trail.
He is in his 6th term and has run un opposed twice. The Republicans have targeted $2 million to try to get him in nov 08. Can't wait. He is the best
hopelesslypartisan.com barry sinrod
Post a Comment
<< Home