PDA

View Full Version : WH puts limits on queries from Democrats




Ugg
Nov 7, 2003, 02:33 PM
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9708-2003Nov6.html)

The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.

The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels. Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing from the committee."

He said this would limit "duplicate requests" and help answer questions "in a timely fashion."

It would also do another thing: prevent Democrats from getting questions answered without the blessing of the GOP committee chairmen.

"It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly, Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know, this is without modern precedent."

Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."

Campen's e-mail wording suggests the policy may extend to other inquiries about the functioning of the Executive Office of the President, but the immediate targets were the spending committees. For years, those panels had a strong bipartisan tradition in which the majority party generally joined the minority in tough oversight of the administration.

Brookings Institution government scholar Thomas Mann said the Democrats have little ability to challenge the decision. "This is just one of many instances where Republicans have a legal basis for what they're doing, but it violates long-standing norms," he said. All the Democrats can do, he said, "is carp."

The White House said it is in discussions to reach an amicable compromise. "There have been staff-level discussions about ways to better coordinate requests from Congress," said spokeswoman Ashley Snee. "It was not the intent to suggest minority members should not ask questions without the consent of the majority."

There goes another myth about the "freedoms" we enjoy in this country and reinforces the fact that gw & co. are more interested in totalitarianism than a democratic republic.



mactastic
Nov 7, 2003, 05:10 PM
And then they whine about how unfair it is that none of their judges get confirmation hearings.

Changing the tune in Washington my arse.

Desertrat
Nov 7, 2003, 06:55 PM
"House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln."

ROFL!!!

Ya go to askin' Mickey Mouse questions, they cut off your cheese supply...

:D, 'Rat

zimv20
Nov 7, 2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat

Ya go to askin' Mickey Mouse questions, they cut off your cheese supply...


rat, you're the one who consistently harps about gov't waste. the way to combat waste is through audits and enforcing accountability.

i realize you find this particular query amusing, but shouldn't you, in actuality, be glad that _someone_ is trying to force the WH to be accountable?

Desertrat
Nov 8, 2003, 09:16 AM
Okay, fine. Let's change the whole political process. No more photo ops by anybody, anywhere, anytime. No ceremonious signing of bills into law, with people of that particular interest group flown in for the occasion. No more "fact-finding" joy-riding junkets, by anybody in Congress or the Administration. And on and on...

I realize that even the small stuff adds up, but given the way our entire government is run, I just can't get excited over this level of nit-picking.

Particularly when it's this hypocritical. You're gonna find me hard to convince that those worrying about the cost of this banner aren't themselves just as bad in their own various self-promotions. Purely partisan politics, sez me.

It's proper to question White House spending, but the reality is that it's best reserved for some meaningful issue. You go to stomping on someone's turf inside the Beltway, the paybacks can be painful. Getting burned over trivia is just plain stoopid.

:), 'Rat

Sayhey
Nov 8, 2003, 09:34 AM
'Rat,

The inquiry in question is not that big of deal. It should be an embarrassment to the WH that Bush can stand up in a press conference and say that the WH had nothing to do with the staging of the event on the carrier. They had to back track almost immediately. There is no doubt that some Democrats are trying to get some information that would show the lie for what it is. I agree this narrow part of it is a tempest in a teapot, as entertaining as it is.

However, to cut off your opposition from Congressional inquiries is a very big deal. That cuts to the heart of open government. That I can't believe you support.

wwworry
Nov 8, 2003, 10:35 AM
The real issue with the banner on the aircraft carrier is that more American soldiers have died in Iraq after "mission accomplished" than before. When questioned about the banner the White House, as usual, lied about who was responsible for the sign. They said the soldiers put up the sign when, in fact, the whole mega dollar photo op, including the aircraft carrier circling around so that land could not be seen in the background, was orchestrated by the White House.

They have egg on their faces and now they do not anyone to ask them about it. This is the same lack of accountability that was seen when they denied requests for the Enron sponsored energy policy meetings.

Desertrat
Nov 8, 2003, 11:03 PM
No, Sayhey, I don't support the cutoff. It's petty. However, it's also what happens when this high degree of "warfare" gets going. When you try to start a ruckus over purely partisan politics, a purely partisan response is what you get. In this particular deal, both sides are acting like kindergardeners. IMO.

I don't have a clue about the thinking behind all this BSing and denial/Oops! nonsense. It ain't the way I'd do things. I'd never forget the ancient adage that a secret is only a secret if it's limited to two people and one of them is dead. This applies inside the Beltway more than anywhere else I know of.

'Rat

Thanatoast
Nov 8, 2003, 11:57 PM
This is scary ****. The White House continues to cut itself off from accountability. Sure it's only a banner now. What about when it's not?

mactastic
Nov 10, 2003, 09:06 AM
Oh but we must spend $80 million to find out who gave who a blowjob, and that is a well-founded use of government money, but a banner - well that's just the way the game is played.

Ok so he didn't lie under oath. But he lied. When it was about a blowjob it was impeachable, when it was about a banner photo-op it's the opposition playing politics. I get it.

Taft
Nov 10, 2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
No, Sayhey, I don't support the cutoff. It's petty. However, it's also what happens when this high degree of "warfare" gets going. When you try to start a ruckus over purely partisan politics, a purely partisan response is what you get. In this particular deal, both sides are acting like kindergardeners. IMO.

Yeah, they are. But remember back during the Clinton days? Do you remember how things were different? Do you remember how congress wouldn't leave Clinton alone until he answered all of their questions?

What seperates these two situations is that during the Clinton years, Republicans held control of the legislature. The "opposition" party could ask all the questions it wanted to because they had the voting power. The president literally couldn't refuse. Now, the "opposition" party doesn't have control of the legislature. They don't have voting power.

One question: since the "opposition" party can't force the issue via a voting process, does that mean that the president shouldn't be held accountable?

The system for exposing corruption and holding it accountable is very messed up in this country. A majority should never be needed to instigate investigation of corruption or wrongdoing. As it stands, Bush will never be held accountable because he controls the legislature like a puppet via his party. Now, if Democrats were allowed to ask questions, to force hearings, etc. this corrupt president might be held accountable for his actions.

This is bad. Very bad.

Taft

Desertrat
Nov 10, 2003, 08:34 PM
"A majority should never be needed to instigate investigation of corruption or wrongdoing."

True, but we're stuck with it.

"As it stands, Bush will never be held accountable because he controls the legislature like a puppet via his party."

Also true, SFAIK, but I imagine you'll just get mostly grins from Congressfolks--when off the record. On the record, you'll get the usual bland pablum. Beltway hardball is nasty stuff.

I'm gonna be off traveling for the best part of ten days or so. Y'all take care...

'Rat

mcrain
Nov 10, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
True, but we're stuck with it.

No we are NOT! It's called the democratic process. The Republicans are basically bending us over, lubing us up, and sticking it to us all, and then lying about it. Oh, it wasn't me, it was that other person standing with his pants down behind you. Or worse, acting like we don't have the right to ask who is sticking it to us. They are telling us all to shut up and take it.

VOTE REGIME CHANGE IN 2004

Desertrat
Nov 11, 2003, 07:56 AM
Gee, mccrain, isn't it sad this sort of stonewalling never, ever happened before?

Who hired Craig Livingstone? Where did all those illegal FBI files come from? Back up through time, through various administrations, and you'll find that regardless of regime change, the behavior doesn't change.

And that's why I say we're stuck with it.

'Rat

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 11, 2003, 08:10 AM
its called the tear down game, whoever is in the whitehouse can be sure the opposing party will do everything it can to criticize everything and anything and make the president dodge constant mud. both parties have been guilty but with the demo's playing games on nominee's after 3 yrs the whitehouse has decided to play games on stupid questions, someone needs to sit both PARTYS down and spank the crap out of both of them and tell them no more PARTYS till they get along....................by the way their PARTYS are at the cost of our TAX DOLLARS!