Political bits
(WaPo) Bradley Schlozman's partisan political operations at the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department reaches the front page. (He has been a bad, bad boy.)
(AP) Giuliani offers his defense on not showing up for the Iraq Study Group Meetings. The only problem is the defense doesn't hold water. Expect this to haunt him for awhile.
(Politicalwire) Second quarter fundraising projections. (Obama by a ton.)
(Politico) Sherrod Brown makes the rare admission that his vote on military trials was "a bad vote."
(AP) Giuliani offers his defense on not showing up for the Iraq Study Group Meetings. The only problem is the defense doesn't hold water. Expect this to haunt him for awhile.
(Politicalwire) Second quarter fundraising projections. (Obama by a ton.)
(Politico) Sherrod Brown makes the rare admission that his vote on military trials was "a bad vote."
posted by mikevotes at
8:56 AM
5 Comments:
With each passing day we are treated to new revelations of the most audacious violations of ethics and the law at the hands of this administration. And with each passing day Congress swoons with the vapor and moral outrage BUT DOESN'T DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.
It is the sin of omission -- to stand by and do nothing -- that will be the undoing of the Dems. They will be more hated because more was expected from them.
By
-epm, at 10:12 AM
I don't know about that. I understand the argument, that it might damage Dems, but I would say it damages the Repubs more.
Yes the Dems seem powerless which enrages their party, but at the same time, they also stay well clear of the political witch hunt charges which damage them more in the center.
These charges of violations of the Hatch act and politicization of the DoJ are pretty complex to punch through to full understanding on the evening news.
Morally, I fell that you are right, but, the political argument might not match that.
I don't know. Maybe compare it to the Iraq war politics. The Dems are definitely gaining center support on the prception they're against the war, but they aren't really paying the cost amond the middle of cutting off funds.
Again, just making an argument.
By
mikevotes, at 1:39 PM
I don't know. From Pollster.com:
"Additional analysis from a recent Gallup national survey of 1,007 adults (conducted 6/11 through 6/14) finds "[t]he percentage of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades.""
If the confidence in congress is lower than even before the Repubs were rousted from the majority, I can't see how you spin this as a positive for Dems. I think there is wide and deep frustration in the American body politic with the Dem leadership in both houses.
I understand the politics, and I understand the lack of real power to affect results when you've got such a slim majority and are up against a hostile president. It's the seeming lack of backbone -- failing to go toe-to-toe with the admin --, not the lack of results, that sends me over the edge... and I expect I'm not a unique data point in this.
By
-epm, at 2:29 PM
I'll certainly accept your argument.
Just my opinion, but if you're talking about elections, I find it difficult to believe that an ineffective Congress spins more negatively than a corrupt presidency.
And we only get two choices in this country.
By
mikevotes, at 2:35 PM
... enter Bloomberg and Nader.
By
-epm, at 2:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home