« In which I pledge undying love to a fern and then break its heart | Main | Single Ladies - Flannel PJ Version »

January 07, 2009

Comments

Jeebus do I hate the ballet.

That is all.

Although I agree that a lot of what is going on here is Agency anonymous, and not-so-anonymous, pissing because Kappes won't be elevated, or Hayden kept on, or another insider awarded, I, myself, am all for Congressional independence, even if we've not seen enough in a long time, and even because we've not seen enough in a long time, and that the principle of Congressional independence is a hell of a lot more important in the long run than any minor pissing contest over a given nomination.

I'm extremely doubtful that most of the current offended people in the blogosphere would be writing aggrieved posts if it were President Bush who hadn't bothered to consult Congress on a nomination. After all, Congress has a history of getting pissy about nominations committee chairs aren't consulted on for a couple of centuries. It's not like Feinstein and Rockefeller are acting in some strange new way for Senators.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm not a supporter of the Imperial Presidency, and I'm somewhat surprised to see so many left/liberal inclined bloggers suddenly coming out for a privilege of the Imperial Presidency ("oh, we needn't bother with Congress; they should just follow White House orders without question") now that it's in our hands.

gary - i don't even remotely see how not calling two fairly pathetic senators prior to a nomination is an example of supporting the "imperial presidency."

not even remotely related -- if he had said he doesn't senate approval, then maybe

Gary, it seems to me that this appointment and the ensuing kerfuffle aren't really about executive/legislative turf wars. Obama is trying to distance his CIA from the CIA of the last eight years, and Feinstein and Rockefeller have been complicit in the things that were done on their watch. Obviously, Obama should have done something to pretend like he was consulting them, for purely diplomatic reasons, but there's also no way to sugarcoat the fact that Obama's choice of a "No Torture, No exceptions" guy is an indication that he doesn't share Feinstein and Rockefeller's Laissez Faire approach to torture. And no one is saying that congress shouldn't do its job in vetting the nominee, but that's a procedural power which no one is denying them; if there's something wrong with Panetta, let them say so. Crying to the press about not being "consulted" is simply juvenile.

Curses! too slow!

... but there's also no way to sugarcoat the fact that Obama's choice of a "No Torture, No exceptions" guy is an indication that he doesn't share Feinstein and Rockefeller's Laissez Faire approach to torture.

Well, we'll know soon enough if Obama shares their approach to torture: if, like them, he makes clear he doesn't want to see the instigators of torture prosecuted, from George W. Bush downwards.

If Obama is going to govern like Bush, without consulting Congress even where Congress is entitled to review his choices, well... it's not as if pundits across the US haven't been eating this with a spoon, hot and steaming, for eight years.

Of course that was Bush, and this is Obama. That was a Republican, this is a Democrat. That was a white heir to a political dynasty, this is a black upstart who has close relatives who aren't even American.

For all those reasons, Obama isn't going to get the soft-nose, kidgloves, whatever-you-say-sir, handling that Bush got, no matter what Bush did.

Jeebus do I hate the ballet.

I used to feel the same way when I was a kid.

Then, as a teenager, I played in the orchestra for a performance of The Nutcracker and got to watch the girls from up close.

The words "epiphany" and "holy cow" come to mind.

It also disabused me of the notion that male dancers were wimpy.

The costumes are goofy, and the general vibe attached to ballet specifically is fairly annoying, but at a pure, thoroughbred, beautiful animal level, dancers and what they do kick ass.

Thanks -

Thanks -

The evidence that the Obama team had every intention of talking to Feinstein, the Intel chair, is that they talked to Wyden, the next-ranking member. Someone somewhere leaked the appointment, and forced their hand. Feinstein, Rockefeller, and the CIA had a different candidate. In addition, Feinstein has some rocky political history with Panetta (which may account for why they approached Wyden first).

So she got publicly huffy about not being consulted when, with a different choice, she would have kept mum until talking to Obama.

Sens. F. and R. have been intel tools for most of their careers. "Regulatory capture" has happened in a big way on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which itself was a weak-tea "reform" resulting from the charade "investigation" of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission (Dick Cheney's idea).

The delicate snowflake bit is b.s. It's just sound politics and good governance, as well as tradition, for administrations of the same party to give a heads-up to committee leaders about upcoming nominations. But neither are Feinstein and Rockefeller standing up for any principle of Congressional independence; they're just being pissy. Their sorry record of capitulation to an out-of-control executive speaks for itself.

Sorry -- here the link I meant to insert:

"investigation"

Actually, Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel is the one who can ballet dance.

at a pure, thoroughbred, beautiful animal level, dancers and what they do kick ass

But only with a very elegant kick and some graceful hand gestures to accompany it.

"i don't even remotely see how not calling two fairly pathetic senators prior to a nomination is an example of supporting the 'imperial presidency.'"

Because in all previous Democratic administrations, and in all administrations through the 20th and 19th centuries, you ran your nominees through your relevant committee chairs and senior members before announcing them, or they'd go to the press complaining. Duh.

To suddenly complain about this ancient practice just because we don't like Feinstein and Rockefeller has no historical consistency, other than to hold up the beliefs of Richard Nixon and his followers, the Reagan/Bush folk, that the presidency is above mere consulting with Congress. Have you never read The Imperial Presidency?

Can you name a single committee chair person in the history of Congress prior to G. W. Bush's reign who ever did not complain to the press if not consulted in advance on a nomination? Bill Clinton even consulted with the Republicans on his judicial nominees, a step arguably too far, but not unprecedented, particularly given blue slip procedure.

Consulting the committee chair and ranking minority is SOP. Period. Why do you think Joe Biden said:

Vice President-elect Joe Biden -- offering one last defense of the institution he's inhabited for three decades -- conceded the Obama transition team made a "mistake" in not consulting the Senate before tapping Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

"I'm still a Senate man and I always think this way," he told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress."

On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the incoming chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was surprised by the pick and complained that she wasn't consulted.

"I think it was just a mistake," Biden said of the transition team's failure to check in with Feinstein and outgoing Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who was also miffed.

Why do you think Harry Reid said:
Reid said the Obama administration should have told lawmakers about the pick, saying incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “would be the first to admit that he didn’t tell enough people on this. I talked to him [on Tuesday].”
Not bothering to consult committee chairs over cabinet nominees is unitary executive theory in action. (Although in this case I think it was just a mistake.) It's weird to see liberals support it simply because today we don't like Feinstein and Rockefeller, and do like Obama. It's ahistoric, and unwise. Since when have Democrats ever defended Presidents not consulting committee chairs and the ranking minority member on cabinet nominations? What kind of precedent would this set? Do we really want the next Republican President to be able to point to the previous Democratic Congress to blow off such complaints? Why?

Look at this beyond this week's news, and this season's passions, please.

I think that for the purposes of clarity, russell really ought to have specified that by "dancers", he really meant people that lots of other people pay more than the price of a movie ticket to dance. And not, for instance, this guy.

Hopefully.

gary -- i completely and 100% disagree.

if they didn't like it, they should have gone to obama first. the issue is the public reaction. and the idea that criticizing that reaction somehow should be read as me supporting some sort of yoo theory is, frankly, ridiculous.

"if they didn't like it, they should have gone to obama first."

Can you give a cite of committee chairs ever not going to the press when not consulted?

Congress is independent, and should be. There's no reason they should kowtow to a President.

And not, for instance, this guy.

LOL. Ouch!!

I guess we all start somewhere.

Although, not always in public.

Someday we may regret the invention of the digital camcorder.

Thanks -

Why I'm not getting, publius, is why you treat this as if it were some weird, unprecedented, behavior, when it's absolutely the way things have always been done. Why should centuries of precedent be broken in this case? If you can explain that, you'll be explaining, well, why that should be.

I repeat: why do you think Reid and Biden spoke up for SOP?

How are Feinstein and Rockefeller "delicate snowflakes" for being absolutely according to historic Congressional norms?

Please feel free to explain.

They're not delicate snowflakes, and they're not upset about being left out the loop. They are only pretending to whine.

They are complicit and and terrified of being implicated.

"How are Feinstein and Rockefeller "delicate snowflakes" for being absolutely according to historic Congressional norms?"

It depends on whether Congressional norms are about being delicate snowflakes.

Jeebus do I hate the ballet.

Personally, I love the bear in the little car.

It depends on whether Congressional norms are about being delicate snowflakes.

Sebastian nails it. Being a spineless, overweening, hair-trigger egoist *is* a congressional norm - particularly a Senate norm.

I do think that it was a snafu, that Team O meant to talk to Her Majesty Feinstein and His Nibs J-Rock before it leaked.

I went to school with Jay Rockefeller. He spoke at our 50th reunion in 2004 and presented a most paranoid and inaccurate picture of our situation. I think the intel committee has been coopted, as others suggest. And I have even heard echoes of their paranoid vibe in Barack's speech. Luckily though I think he is not in the same league with Jay and Diane. Bypassing them on the Panetta appointment was the best sign of this.

I MUCH prefer the dance of the snowflakes from Mark Morris's Hard Nut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drFs3cWP1uw

I have a soft spot for ballet.

(I have 2 young daughters).

This is pretty much not the Unitary Executive theory in any way.

Let's see what Bush did with that rationale:

Signing statements that quite said it was up to him to choose whether he followed the bill a all.

Proclamations that the President could detain and torture anyone.

Politicizing the Justice Department and then claiming that Congress had no power to do anything.

Oh yeah, and the kicker...refusing to even answer subpoenas about anything, and that the President could magically give everyone executive privilege regardless of their role or when said actions too place.

In this case Obama is accused of:
Not calling a couple people before announcing an appointment.

You can say it was politically boneheaded and maybe even it was bad in that it will make Congress more antagonistic towards him, but in no way is he infringing on their powers. All they'd have to do is just vote down his nominee if they don't like him.

Being a spineless, overweening, hair-trigger egoist *is* a congressional norm - particularly a Senate norm.

Well put!

But except for the "spineless" part, that's actually a good thing. If Senators weren't egoists, there would be even less left of the balance of powers. Something has to motivate those louts to oppose the President on occasion. Patriotism, public interest, and common sense clearly won't do it.

Nell's comment that "neither are Feinstein and Rockefeller standing up for any principle of Congressional independence; they're just being pissy," is thus true, but beside the point. The exercise of Congressional independence is what effectuates the principle.

Besides, they're not just being pissy. As Aaron & Nell said, Panetta is not their preferred candidate and does not reflect their policy. Traditionally, they should have had the opportunity to make that case to the President, and at least to trade their public acquiescence for some future goodwill or even something more specific. Huffing about it publicly now is the closest they can come to retroactively getting that same bargaining chip. Again, balance of powers in action.

They also thereby preserve their and other Senators' traditional prerogatives for the rest of the term. They are making more of a fuss than they might have 3 years in, precisely because it is the start of Obama's tenure and they need to establish immediately or never that they will not be walked on. Would that they had EVER done that with Bush -- and why they didn't is still a mystery to me and makes me seriously contemplate conspiracy theories I usually wouldn't touch with a ten-gallon tinfoil hat.

That said, this is all a tempest in a teapot, not a Teapot Dome. I just hope it is not an early storm-warning that the Senate Dem leadership is going to treat Obama the way they treated Clinton, with similar results. You would think these people would like to be in the majority party for more than two years.

ACK! Make italics go 'way!

Jane, how do I stop this crazy thing?!?

Does that do it?

What The Crafty Trilobite said.

Gary is right, DiFI and JayRock are acting well within historical norms, silly though it may look. "Checks and Balances" sounds more dignified on paper (lofty speeches larded with quotes from Locke and Montesquieu, etc.) than it is in reality. Welcome to the sausage factory.

Having said that, criticizing Senators for acting like kindergarteners fighting over the milk and cookies isn't exactly the same as being an apologist for the Imperial Presidency either. DiFi could have done a better job of articulating why she should have been consulted beforehand (say along the same lines as the discussion here), and then she wouldn't have come across as so petulant in the media. Why can't we have leaders who are capable of explaining how the US Constitution is supposed to function in a coherent way to the general public? If random bloggers can do it then it can't be that difficult.

"Why can't we have leaders who are capable of explaining how the US Constitution is supposed to function in a coherent way to the general public? If random bloggers can do it then it can't be that difficult."

We may actually understand how it is supposed to work better than them. For us it a tool for our protection. For them it is something that gets in the way of their power.


That said, this is all a tempest in a teapot, not a Teapot Dome. I just hope it is not an early storm-warning that the Senate Dem leadership is going to treat Obama the way they treated Clinton, with similar results. You would think these people would like to be in the majority party for more than two years.

The Carter administration is another troubling precedent that Dems should look to for lessons learned on this score, especially as the economic and foreign policy challenges we presently face have less of a 1990s remix and more of retro-70s feel to them.

Another meta-issue that I'm watching with interest here is how the Obama administration adapts to deal with leaks. The O-campaign was almost leak free, but I think they are finding out now that there is simply no way to duplicate that feat once in power. There are different way they can react to this problem. Nixonian paranoia and anti-leak witchhunts are the worse case reaction. I hope they learn to accept that leaks are a fact of life in DC and adapt to just deal with them instead.

Gary,

You claim that pre-nomination consultation with (some) Senators is the historic norm. You do not provide a cite.

I found the following on the internets. It's quite interesting, but I found nothing there that substantiates your claim.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q6MHbm4kEX8C&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=Senate+consultation+%2B+presidential+cabinet+nominees&source=web&ots=6zMvX2tT4l&sig=eEYiRa85_50vAtIOJkGn8jG4e38&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA113,M1

Take a look.

Thanks.

Fixed italics.

Note to aspiring italics-fixers: given that the failure mode is almost always that you closed tags with a [i] instead of a [/i], it's probably best to try and fix with [/i][/i], which is fairly effective. Sometimes people just forget to try and close the tag, but it seems that much more often it's incorrectly closed by omission of the slash.

Ahhhhhhhh!! Zombie Moe Lane!

Dunno how that happened. Maybe that's my way of telling you that Moe and I are one.

...although if that were true, I just would have blammed someone. Whatever 'blammed' means.

Am I nuts, or does it seem like Obama was trying to start this fight? He had to know it'd rub Feinstein the wrong way, and that bringing in an outsider would rub the entire CIA the wrong way. I read it as his way of saying that we're out of the torture & stovepiping business in two weeks, and anybody who doesn't like that is more than welcome to go make their unconstitutional case in public.

Oh, wait, this is what they mean when they say Obama supporters project their desires onto him. Got it.

Still, everybody keeps forgetting to mention that he pissed off Jane Harmon too, which means that even if he doesn't get a single shred of his agenda passed in the next four years, his election's still a net plus.

it's probably best to try and fix with [/i][/i]

i've had no luck at all with that for a few months now. you guys (or someone) changed the comments HTML and now i have to use this to kill runaway italics:

[/p][/i][/p][/i]

there's some kind of strange P nesting going on now.

Slarti- Hilzoy said the other day that for some reason the software doesn't always log her out after putting on her Moe Lane anti-comment [email protected] suit.

Maybe that's my way of telling you that Moe and I are one.

...one what?

... after putting on her Moe Lane anti-comment [email protected] suit.

Which suggests the same Moe Lane anti-comment [email protected] suit fits both Slarti and Hilzoy, though perhaps not at the same time.

Perhaps Slarti, Hilzoy, and Moe Lane are all the same person. Has anyone ever seen them in the same place?

I think cleek's got some kind of p nest envy thing going on.

With or without a fern?

I think cleek's got some kind of p nest envy thing going on.

Do you think it's pseudo-textual?

it's probably best to try and fix with [/i][/i]

i've had no luck at all with that for a few months now. you guys (or someone) changed the comments HTML and now i have to use this to kill runaway italics:

[/p][/i][/p][/i]

there's some kind of strange P nesting going on now.

oh great. now i'm double-posting. that's some big brain i got.

i blame the shock of finding out i'm gonna have a root canal monday morning. *&#^@#*!

Beats the html out of me.

A few notes:

1)I reserve the right to complain about anyone who does not verify nominations that I like. This is true even if they are completely within their legal rights to do so. If Obama, Bush or any other President makes a good nomination for appointment (unlikely as that might be in some cases) and gets shot down by congress, that is a BAD thing and should be condemned. This is doubly true in cases where the reasons given for complaining about an appointment are insufficiently serious. If, for instance, Obama were trying to rush an appointee through nomination without any discussion, I would be interested in complaints. That Obama chose his man instead of yours without consulting you first is significantly less compelling. It isn't wholly without merit, just largely so.

2)The above does not make me a supporter of the unitary executive. Similarly, if the President vetoes very good bills and I complain about that, this doesn't make me a supporter of the unitary legislative. Real decisions have real consequences. Just because one can do something (like, say, complain to the press about not being consulted first) does not mean one should.

3)Obama should have gone through SoP and notified Feinstein et al, if only to smooth ruffled feathers. It was stupid not to, but for largely symbolic reasons.

4)The fact that congress always acts like a bunch of gits is no reason not to complain when they do the same now. Just because everyone else has done something wrong doesn't mean that it is okay if a specific person does something wrong, even if all those someone elses exist in the past. My HS students sometimes have a hard time understanding that concept. I am a bit surprised to see their arguments turn up here, though.

Just asciing.

let's not get all ansi, now.

*whimpers*

I never meta character like cleek before.

You're very fortranite.

"It's quite interesting, but I found nothing there that substantiates your claim."

Well, setting aside that it's bizarre to need to go to a book to "substantiate" my anodyne claim -- notice that anyone who pays attention, such as Nell, TLTIABQ, The Crafty Trilobite, and others, substantiate it, as will simply anyone who has ever followed Congress -- read pages 112-114. See also pages xvii- xxii, and page xxiv-xxviii, particularly the paragraph beginning "a third pattern within the appointment process is that most of the significant in the appointments process occurs before a nominee is selected." Also, lastly, the bottom of page 122. I don't know what it is you're contesting.

But, really, if you want to believe that I'm just making it up that letting the ranking members of relevant committees know who your nominees are before you publically announce them is SOP for nominations, fine, entertain whatever fantasy versions of reality you like.

(And to repeat again: none of this is to speak for the virtues of Rockefeller, or particularly Feinstein, or their choices; I'm simply noting that their behavior is according to historical norms, and calling it unusual is unjustified. That doesn't make them wise or right.)

Ooops! That should be "fortranate."

Slarti: after some experimentation, I can report:

If you log in as Moe to delete sp*m, and then log out again, it sometimes keeps you logged in as Moe for the purposes of the comments section. It will say something like 'logged in as Moe Lane', but you might not bother to look, since as you perfectly well know, you've logged out.

Tough, says TypePad. Why should we make life easy for you? Or, for that matter, for Moe?

It will, however, let you log out again, in some new special comments way, if you ask politely.

Sigh.

So, the Moe State is, well, sticky?

Good to know: sometimes you're Moe long after you told yourself to stop being Moe.

I actually suspected as much, because I know damned well that I didn't change the name field, and I don't believe in leprechauns.

Blam!

So, the Moe State is, well, sticky?

You don't even have to ask for Moe.

Please, sir! May I have some Moe?

Meanwhile, on substance:

Reversing themselves, Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday morning opened the door to allowing Roland W. Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the Senate.

After a private 45-minute meeting with the former Illinois state attorney general, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said that they were open to recognizing Mr. Burris’s appointment as long as he met several conditions.

They said that Mr. Burris, whose appointment was challenged because of the federal corruption inquiry surrounding Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, has to win the signature of the Illinois secretary of state and persuade a state legislative committee considering Mr. Blagojevich’s impeachment that there was nothing untoward about his selection.

“If that comes to a positive conclusion, as we believe it will, the next step is for the Rules Committee to review what has come together here on a bipartisan basis and recommend to the United States Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, the next step,” Mr. Durbin said.

[...]

Senior Democratic officials are now saying that there is a growing sense among Senate Democrats and advisers to Mr. Obama that Mr. Burris should ultimately be seated, as long as it can be done in a face-saving way for Democrats who had initially said they would block the appointment.


Please, sir! May I have some Moe?

How about Five Guys Named Moe?


Senior Democratic officials are now saying that there is a growing sense among Senate Democrats and advisers to Mr. Obama that Mr. Burris should ultimately be seated, as long as it can be done in a face-savingplanting way for Democrats who had initially said they would block the appointment.

Fixt, since this is Reid's show we are talking about here.

I never meta character like cleek before.

don't try feeding us any lines.

How about Five Guys Named Moe?

My grandfather was a printer, and I simply reverted to type. (© Walter A. Willis.)

@Slartibartfast

In honor of the imminent departure of the Bush administration:


Dick and George had a candy store
Telling fortune behind a door
Cop grabbed Dick and as George ran out
Brother Dick then began to shout
(Run George!) Eh, de man at de door
(Run George!) He man won't let me go
(Run George!) Run as fast as you can
(Run George!) Police holding me han'

(Loey, Loey, Loey, Loey, Loey)
(Loey, Loey, Loey, Loey, Loey)
Ask Condi to stand me bail
Don't want to sleep in this rotten jail
Hide de crystal ball by de fence
So dey won't find no evidence
When you reach home, get in de bed
Call a doctor and tie your head
Let Condi invent a lie
Got to have a good alibi
(Run George!) Eh, de man at de door
(Run George!) De man won't let me go
(Run George!) Run as fast as you can
(Run George!) De police holdin' me han'

(Loey, J/Loey, J/Loey, J/Loey, J/Loey)
Get Alberto to talk for me
They'll sure give me de third degree
When dey take me before de sarge
I am going to deny de charge
When de judge ask me how I plead
"Not guilty, sir, most decidedly
You can see, Judge, at a glance
I'm a victim of circumstance."
(Run George!) Eh, man at de door
(Run George!) De man won't let me go
(Run George!) Run as fast as you can
(Run George!) De police holdin' me han'


To clarify: Our delicate snowflakes were whining because they hadn't been consulted over a name that wasn't announced. Just leaked.

From all appearances, it appeared to be an actual leak, and not the "I'd like to test out this idea" leak. There's nothing terribly controversial about this pick that would necessitate a trial balloon, and Obama's team doesn't seem to be bothering with them anyways.

Nor is it "unitary executive" to choose people without going to ask Congressal members nicely first if they'd be okay with it.

It might be good politics, as it prevents pissy Senators from blocking your appointments due to excessive ego bruising, but Senators get their critical say in the process through the hearings and vote, not through a casual phone call weeks earlier.

If Obama had appointed Panetta and attempted to prevent Congress from voting to accept or reject his choice, as per the Constitution, THAT would be a "unitary executive".

Notifying or not notifying Congressmen prior to formally announcing your nominee has NOTHING to do with the Constitution, Seperation of Powers, or anything governmental at all.

It is simply a political choice, not a governing, legislative, Constitutional, or legal theory.

So slarti, an admiring public wants to know: What exactly were you searching for or googling when you discovered the youtube vid, "Sex" solo at the Pulse!!!" linked in your 10:28 post above?

Just curious.

publius/Gary: On the one hand, it seems like Obama violated a sense of protocol -- or as his VP-elect said, "It was a mistake" -- nothing more, nothing less. Give the guy a break. (DiFi -- with her "It's-my-ball-and-I'm-taking-it-and-going-home" vibe -- comes off the loser here.)

On the other hand, "No Drama" Obama seems pretty savvy to have made such a mistake of protocol -- and commenter Stephen C. Rose presents a good theory (at 11:47 AM) as to why, and if true, makes Obama even savvier and smarter than I thought he was.

---

russell: Had a similar awakening about ballet as you -- except mine came later in life. The college I attended in Pittsburgh specialized in two majors: Journalism and Communication and Dance (jazz and ballet). Seeing the dancers do their thing up close, day after day, gave you a real appreciation of their art, among other things.

---

"Perhaps Slarti, Hilzoy, and Moe Lane are all the same person. Has anyone ever seen them in the same place?"

Good one, Jes.

My grandfather was a printer, and I simply reverted to type.

Perhaps that explains how you've come to be such a font of wisdom, Gary.

To clarify: Our delicate snowflakes were whining because they hadn't been consulted over a name that wasn't announced.

to clarify even further. our president-elect has an approval rating in the low 80s. congress has an approval rating in the mid teens. maybe congress should try riding Obama's coattails for a while ?

UNITARD EXECUTRIXITIVE!

a font of wisdom, Gary

indeed. Gary can pull a quote like no other. majuscule, he is.

I must say, Cleek, sometimes you do have a capital idea.

Another delicate snowflake.

As I said, this happens every time this happens.

Senators are very pissy about their prerogatives. Especially committee chairs and ranking members.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad