Redstate

once and for all that we cannot let the Democrats get control of Congress.

Uh, wait ...

for our dear Speaker? Is there going to be a conservative challenger in that primary? If not, there should be. I think alot more conservative challengers need to be fielded again these disappointing Republicans. That is where our displeasure needs to be made known. Staying home during the general election is a real bad idea, unless you want the Democrats to win.

That is my thinking anyway.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I can no longer be a Republican they deserve to lose the house and senate and to hell with the WOT and the circus the DEMS will turn the legislature into.

I would say this is unbelievable, but it is entirely believable.  The GOP has become drunk with the power of being in the majority.

Of course, once again the GOP shows it is better than the Dems.  It took the Dems 50 years of being in the majority to get this corrupt.  The GOP did it in only 12.

I think it is high-time to revive Newt's Contract With America and insist on a Constitutional Amendment imposing Term Limits on Congressmen and Senators!!

that we really DO need to resurrect the term limits debate.

but this has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. It all comes down to people protecting their own turf. Some Senate Republicans also sided with the Democrats to preserve the filibuster, putting the institution of the Senate above all else.

if there can be a vote of no confidence (or whatever we would call it) for the Speaker midterm?  If so, have it voted on and see what happens.

Keeping the filibuster around doesn't seem like THAT bad of a thing.

In defense of the Speaker, I think am intelligent argument can be made that members of Congress should not generally have their offices searched. With that said, I don't think that Supremes will find this much different than Nixon turning over tapes 30 years ago.

but wouldn't it have been better if it had been done by someone other than the executive branch? That is, the issue here isn't probable cause, it's conflict of interest and separation of powers.

have my office searched either, but on the other hand I haven't taken at least $100k in bribes.

...on this matter, he would probably disavow his Contract With America today.

Hastert is taking preemtive action. He is hiding something and doesn't want his office searched.

The Executive is charged with enforcing the law. There isn't anyone else unless maybe we bring in agents from the Tennessee Fish and Game Commission or something.

Who else?

Who would have executed the warrant?

A federal judge signed the warrant after a showing of probable cause) and the law enforcement entity investigating the case executed it.

The fact that these records had not been turned over despite a grand jury subpoena indicates that the House was not going to do anything about this on their own and since the Capitol Police are "theirs" (see Rep. Kennedy), it is highly unlikely that they would have done this.

who is going to do this, the Capitol police who are also charged with protecting the members, even to the extent of driving them home when they wreck their cars while trying to reach the House for a 2:45am vote?

If they did search it, they would have to hand the documents over to the FBI so I don't see how this solution really solves very much and in fact it adds a new layer of complication.

The House can remove the Speaker with a 2/3 vote, I believe.  As far as I know, there's no "intraparty" way to remove him.

or be gone.

1.) Which CONSERVATIVE Republican is challenging him for the Speakership?

2.) What can I do to help make it happen?

can be made that the Earth is flat, as well.  It all depends on how broadly you define your case.  The whole Earth, or just this one little part?  The whole range of governmental practice, or just the case of a crooked politician and the lame ducks who are defending his tactics?

This was done with a COURT ORDER, after William Jefferson, (D-LA) refused to comply with a subpoena. This is not a case of Executive tampering with the Legislative process, over which a Constitutional protection would definitely apply; this is a case of a Congressman attempting to use his office as a shield against a criminal investigation.

that the legislative branch do the searching? The Judicial branch authorizes the issuance of a subpoena. The execution of a subpoena is an executive branch function, not a legislative one. Also, Congress has no authority to do the collecting and searching relating to any search warrant. It was the House General Counsel who refused to comply with the subpoena's request for documents and computer discs. They actually collected the documents and discs and then refused to turn them over. This is what led the judge to recommend to the FBI that a search warrant be issued.  All correct procedure.

Perhaps the next time the Congress issues subpoenas to the White House or to anyone within its administration, it should refuse any and all requests based on this "separation of powers" doctrine.  I can just hear Kennedy, Barney Frank, and their ilk in the MSM screaming "dictatorship"!

In any case, I would like our esteemed congressmen to point out the specific clause in the Constitution that declares this act to have been unconstitutional.

the filibuster which the Dem's will kill if it ever used against them?

The Republicans, as a minority party, will rediscover the benefits of the filibuster.

Between this thread and the previous one by Paul, it is turning into a rather depressing day.

I thought we actually had a republican majority.

<sigh>

What Jon said. If you think the Democrats would sit around and let us filibuster a Ginsberg, you are dead wrong.

Did I miss something? Was I off-planet?

Right now, these inept clowns are directly accountable to the people who sent them there.  You really want to see what happens when they don't have to worry about re-election?

Just like Kennedy was responsible for giving himself a sobriety test and arresting himself for DWI.

but I missed the majority, too.  

Because I blinked.

That long eh?

Don't wait until November, make yourself heard today.  Do not give money to the Republican party or any of its affiliates.  Do give money to individual Republicans, especially to those few with some functioning brain cells but not to the party.  Do give money to independent groups that support conservative causes, for example the Club for Growth.  Hit them where it hurts, in the money bags.

I think alot more conservative challengers need to be fielded again these disappointing Republicans.

Why do you care that Conservatives are in congress, if you want to give all the power to the Executive branch.  Who cares who is in the US Congress, if they don't have any power.  This administration attacked the Congress, and now the Congress has about zero oversight ability (It seems like they don't want the oversight authority anyway).  Now, the administration attacked Congress for corruption.  Lot more Republican's in Congress than Dems, so it seems that there's likely more Republican corruption in congress.  Well, the Republican's didn't care about oversight, but they do care about not having their offices raided (because most of them are corrupt... it's clearly not for balance of power issues).

Anyway, the point is, a true Conservative would've said what the Speaker, but a true Conservative would also have oversight of this administration, and a true Conservative wouldn't want the big government that we have today.  I know for sure that true Conservatives would die before they let the Government have access to their phone records, and everything else they do.

So, are you sure that you want a true Conservative to replace Speaker Haster, or do you want a dictator?  It seems like this blog, and most of these comments, don't come from Conservative values, but from totalitarian dictatorships.  I don't think your values are really American in the traditional sense.  I think you want a king to drool over.

Think about it.  Section one gets no oversight power, they can pass laws, but the President can choose to selectively follow them, and you don't care.  The one time a Conservative would stand-up to this administration, you would be his ouster.  Section three is a group of liberal activist wackos.  In your view, the only power that the Congress should get is to limit the power of the judiciary.  If Congress passes a law that the judiciary says is unconstitutional, you call the judges activist.  You would like congress to pass laws to limit the power of the courts, to remove their oversight powers.  That leaves the president, who now has the power of the purse, oversight by no one, the power to selectively enforce laws, and the power to declare war... indefinitely.  And you support this... and you likely believe these are good American values... but you are also very, very wrong, and one day you will be ashamed of yourself.

a while back...

Give 'em two terms & launch them off the Capitol Dome.

and somewhat of a moderate libertarian to boot. I laugh with vindication when I see these clowns point fingers all over the place and then shielding eachother on the egregious matters.

Limited but effecive and transparent government is a wonderful thing when it actually matters to voters.

But whe you see things like this along with the explosion in government, it's further proof that limited government and integrity is a mirage backed up by empty rhetoric and contradicted when matters of mutual interest arise.

Since you are just a dKos troll. Nice bio by the way.

you don't have the right to define "true conservative", in fact, little here convinces me you could pick a "true conservative" out of a two man line up.

Try another line of argumentation or try a different web site. The choice is yours and it all the same to me.

makes me wonder what other nefarious activities and docments are in these Congressional offices.

It's not separation of territory, it's separation of powers. As long as the executive branch isnt interfering with the legislative process, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

You could fill a library with what I don't know about law enforcement. It just seems that having the FBI do this leaves open the possibility for lots and lots of abuse in cases where probable cause is a bit sketchier.

What I'd be interested in knowing is what has happened in other cases where a congressman's office needed searching. The reaction implies that having the FBI do it is at least unusual.

"It just seems that having the FBI do this leaves open the possibility for lots and lots of abuse in cases where probable cause is a bit sketchier."

It is for this reason you have a judge looking at what LE is providing as "probable cause".  While it should not have been a factor, you can bet that the judge thought long and hard about what office was going to be searched and where it was located before signing off.  The fact that he turned the FBI loose indicates they had some compelling stuff.

...a great mid-season replacement reality show! :-)

I suspect that the Republican Base will rediscover the benefits to having a filibuster once the Democrats have a majority.

I also suspect that there are enough Democrats out there who will know that their majority is hanging by the slim thread of "we're marginally less irritating than they are" that there will be at least 3 or 4 who will say that keeping the filibuster isn't a bad thing.

Perhaps even enough to make another gang of 14.

What a discouraging development this is.  If we had competent, Lloyd Bentsen, Scoop Jackson-style opposition, we would be so totally hosed this November.  At this rate, we may be anyway.

To borrow the sports metaphor, the Congressional majority was ours to lose and we're doing just that.

Maybe, just maybe, the nearly complete lack of adult supervision on the other side of the aisle will result in an abnormally light turnout, with most independent voters walking away from the whole mess in disgust?  But that's just my fantasy.  

Tactically, current conditions resemble the setup to the 1994 "housecleaning" -- to coin a phrase -- but just in reverse. But back then we had articulate, energetic, persuasive and principled leadership that offered voters an attractive alternative to 40+ years of Dem hegemony.  The Dems lack that today, but their weakness may insufficient to our need.

I hear that Cymbalta is a really good new antidepressant.

I was just kidding about being upset. No worries.

On every issue there are many more defections from the Republican caucus than from the Democrats. They are much more disciplined and they have many, many fewer DINOs to worry about than we have RINOs. We can't even get all our Senators to vote for our frickin Presidential candidate. Or stay in the party when offered goodies from the other side.

I think you want a king to drool over.

If you can't be serious, go away.

This whole thing is just another example of how out of touch these Critters get when they've been in Washington for too long.

I'm sure that Hastert thinks he's defending some great and wise Constitutional principle, probably at the urging of many of the Members, who are as out of touch as he is.

But that isn't what it looks like outside the Beltway, as the comments on this thread attest. If Bush had arrested a Congressmen for opposing his policies, We The People™ would be as upset as Hastert seems to be. But to suggest that this search represents a step in that direction is laughable.

No one outside the Beltway is going to believe for one minute that the founders intended the Constitution to protect bribery in high places. We all know what the probable cause was (they have the guy on tape taking a bribe) and we know that the search warrant was properly blessed by the Judicial branch, in accordance with the Constitution. To howl about this as though a Congressman's government-provided office quarters are a sanctum sanctorum in which he can conduct illegal activities and hide the evidence thereof is insane.

Hastert and the rest of them need to climb down from their high horses and face the fact that this happened because they all look the other way every time one of them is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. That Jefferson is dirty is not a new finding. The August Members have had months to look into his activities. They haven't done squat.

If they don't do their own jobs, the public is not going to sympathize with them when somebody else has to do it for them.

can't the friggin Republicans let a crooked, bribe-taking, freezer-stashing thief stay in the well deserved headlines?

Instead they insist on putting themselves in the headlines by making themselves look as if they are above the law.  The FBI was pursuing a federal crime; the subpoena was not responded to; they had a WARRANT.  

Politically stupid and just mind-boggling.  And to think that I had some respect for the political judgment of Hastert and Gingrich.  I always was for Shadegg over Boehner for Majority Leader.

I agree with you absolutely.

When it comes to protecting their own power?

They will fight like Democrats.

Any Branch of the Federal Government is SUPPOSED to act this way whenever they see anything that can be construed as an encroachment on their turf from any of the other three.  If the leaders of Congress were not acting this way, they would not be doing their jobs.

Don't take them too seriously.  Remember, they are smart people.  The greatest interest that almost any politician has is his own skin.  The last thing they want to happen is to be seen as aiding and abetting a criminal.  If that happened, they're history, and they know it.

So relax.  It is all part of the script according to the doctrine of Separation of Powers.  It is all blunder and blust letting the Executive branch know that it hadn't better make this sort of thing a habit.

If this carries over into next month, I will be very surprised.  So sit back and enjoy the show.  

Welcome to the outer darkness that some of us have been living in since the early days of the Bush Administration. I can't remember what it was that finally put me over the edge.

Was it the massive farm subsidies bill? Was it the 'No Child Left Behind' bill that convinced me that I would never stop homeschooling my kids? Was it the waffling on immigration? The waffling on homosexual 'marriage' versus 'civil unions?' The unbalanced budgets?

I don't recall, really. It's all a blur of one Congressional Republican betrayal after another. I went through a hostile period a few years ago where I just sat around and sulked.

After all, I had been the guy out there phone banking, volunteering for candidates. Heck, I've even worked for candidates on their payroll.

But I finally couldn't cope. Just when you thought you'd seen the final act of cowardice - they come through with more. Just when the outrage has become so intense that you feel that a limit must have been reached - they go even further.

Hastert should be thrown out on his head. So should Frist. The Dems aren't the answer, that is for sure, but neither are these clowns. If this is conservatism, then I'm all in favor of mass conversion to something else that doesn't involve anything that Hastert stands for.

It started me thinking, I am not sure that we presently have a DINO in the senate (in the house there are a few), but we have scads of RINOs. Why is that?

Are the Democrats ideologically purer or more focused than the Republicans? Seems that way lately. Could it that the Republicans are just an amalgam of everything to the right of a liberal Democrat and there is no real core to hold us together?

When a Democrat sees the true path, he turns into a Republican, and proclaims it. On the other hand when a Republican strays to the left, or lives on the left, they stay Republican in name. As a rule they don't place the scarlet D on their forehead, they just hunt cameras, trash the president and dare the electorate to exact revenge.

Didn't mean to sound facetious but I am a little puzzled as to why this is so.

and can't help but note that the Dems haven't joined in.

So pardon me if I just attribute this to political tone deafness.

It took the Dems 50 years of being in the majority to get this corrupt.  The GOP did it in only 12.

It's not corruption as much as it is just STUPIDITY.  

There is, ultimately, just ONE SOLUTION.  The size and power of the federal government must be reduced.  Signficantly.

I still remember my hopes during the Reagan administration when there was talk of eliminating entire departments; Agriculture, Education, Labor, etc.  Now look where we are.

where I'm coming from here, so you can hold your welcome at bay as I agree with virtually none of your grievances.

No matter what these clowns do I vote straight R in November. I just want them to get their crap together.

stonewalled, there was not much choice, in the view of the JUdge who issued the warrant.

Hastert is ridiculous on this.

Nowhere is a Congressman immune from properly executed warrants or subpoenas.

Ben Nelson probably qualifies, so there's one. I don't think I would count Lieberman in since he is right there with the Democrats on most stuff.

The Democrats know how to get liberals elected from every state, including red ones. They just lie about who they are when they have to. Every time an election comes around they become Mr. Moderate. They'll pick an issue or two to go against the Democrats on for proof of this. Then on the Wednesday after the election, they are back to voting in a bloc with Kennedy and Boxer and are good for another 5 years. People occasionally catch onto this game (Daschle) but it works surprisingly well. You can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough to win even in a red state.

The Republicans, well, they just give up. They sit out a whole lot of elections, with no serious candidate even running. Or they put up Democrats in Republican's clothing to run for the seat, since obviously no real Republican could possibly win a seat in a blue state.

• The X-Congress Games
  
• Tossed!
  
• American Idle
  
• Big Brother -- Not!
  
• Jobs Americans Shouldn't Do Three Times

We've got to work bikinis and crocodiles in somehow, then it will surely be a hit.

The reason a conservative Democrat is more likely to switch parties than a liberal Republican is that it's more fun to be in the majority party than the minority party.

That's why after the 1994 elections there were so many defections, and why Jim Jeffords bolted to the Democrats (ha ha to him for failing in that).

So most of the DINOs have already switched.

But they have a few in the Senate.  I'd say right now Lieberman is a McCain-style DINO (good voting record, lousy record of leadership for the other side), and both Nelsons are pretty far to the right of the caucus mainstream, which is why Republicans can't seem to unseat them.

It is the same for me.

CITIZEN BLAM.  TO THE PILE™

I have to leave now to run down to the local voodoo shop and pick up a doll in your name.  Put that image in public and there is not sufficient punishment in either this life or the next.

I sure hope the NRCC calls me asking for money tonight...maybe I'll get a letter I can send back

with my thoughts...

nominees to either the bench or for Administration positions that require "Advise & Consent" from the Senate, see John Bolton.  I don't who the President is.  Elections have consequences and it is not up to the jerks in the Senate to protect us from our votes.

Or Citizen's Blam! or whatever......

This guy wouldn't know Conservative if it painted itself purple and danced naked on a piano singing 'Conservative Times Are Here Again!'

That clearly came from the depths of your own repressed, twisted psyche. Seek help.

On the other hand, if we can just get this candidate elected, the bikinis can go forward.

Self Blam!  I apologize.

The fractious nature of the GOP today is in part related to the fact that they are in the majority.  A minority party can be, and will usually be, more united and "ideologically pure."

Think about how united the Republican caucus was in the years prior to 1994.  It always seemed that virtually every Republican voted together on just about everything.  Democrats seemed to have a lot of more conservative members who defected, enabling Republicans to get a lot more than one would have thought.

That was probably because those conservative Democrats would have been happier as Republicans but didn't want to lose the power that being in the majority provides.  As soon as the Donks lost in 1994 many of those folks jumped ship.  Now it's our turn to have outliers.  I don't for a minute think that Linc Chafee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are thrilled at being Republicans right now - but they hold their nose so they get to be Committee/Subcommittee Chairs, rather than simple ranking members.  If there is a tectonic shift in November we may lose some of the RINOs to the Donks (imagine for example Chris Shays in CT - wouldn't he have a much easier time of keeping his seat if he were a Democrat?  And if they win the House, why not switch?).

After reflection, I realized that you didn't mean the first sick, demented, twisted, demonic thing that popped into my weak mind.  I go to a couple of meetings a week, have been through intensive therepy and I still can't shake the effects of the '60's.

We've both been here long enough for you to understand that one of the things we must do is to protect the feeble.  :>)

And I just sent more money to Mrs. Irey.

He changed his bio. I guess you can still do that once you have been banned.

Streiff? What are you going to hold over them to get them in line?

"I'll vote for you no matter how stupid you are, because you are not Harry Reid," is unlikely to provoke wide ranging changes.

Certainly there is the primary process, in which we could weed out RINOs. But guess what? That isn't happening. The Specters and the Hasterts and the other weak sisters keep coming back for more. As long as they are slightly to the right of Nancy Pelosi on certain social issues, then we Republicans keep lining up to vote for them.

So, I am all ears Streiff. Other than complaining and moaning - what do you think we can do about this? I don't care whether you support my list of grievances or not (though you have complained about a couple of them yourself like immigration), what is the plan?

This is like talking about the free market and trying to decide how to punish a company that keeps producing a product that is defective. How can you punish that company, unless you refuse to buy its product until it improves?

Well, I'm all ears, Streiff. What are we supposed to do to get the Republicans in Congress and the White House to listen? Hmmm??? I'd really, really love to hear it.

Don't treat people like me like idiot leftists. I want conservative government. The Republicans simply can't seem to deliver that, so how can we get them to do that if we will vote straight ticket for all of them regardless?

Put it around Capitol Hill. Tell Congress it is to keep out the FBI. No doors, no gates. Cut power, water and communication lines. I bet no one would miss any of them.

this bit of cyberspace to petition my representatives, but if they blow me off I fight my battles in the primaries. If my guy loses I hold my nose and vote R. The worst, most corrupt Republican is better than the most sainted Dem because I am going to get zero that I want from a Dem.

I don't know much about your politics other than you whine a lot. I suppose if that wasn't the case I'd give your posts more attention. But it isn't and so I don't.

and I can count the good one's on my hand.

On the brighter side, at least I won't have to hear these crazy ideas about a Gingrich '08 campaign.  Seems like that boat has left the port, and hit an iceberg.

in the Weekly World News....

...or the New York Times, either way I should have known it was a fake story.

You hurt my feelings. Well, not really.

If all I did was sit around and bang on a keyboard, then I suppose you'd have a point. Last primary season, I was actually out there working for Bill McCollum. If the President hadn't come down hard in favor of Martinez, then we'd have one less RINO pushing open borders in the Senate.

Oh, hey, is that whining? I suppose it is, since sitting Republican Presidents intervening in primaries for candidates used to be verboten but that is so Ronald Reagan, dahling, we're all Country Clubbers now and the President gets the right to squash actual conservatives in the primary if he feels like it.

Well, Streiff, you keep me posted on how this cyber space petitioning thing is working out. Last time I checked, we seem to only be getting anywhere when the rabble of the party gets super upset over some unpardonable act and forces (Myers, etc.) the elected members of the Party into full-scale panic over possibly losing an election.

Which means, that the ONLY hold we actually have is the threat to stay home in November.

Let me know how surrendering that option upfront in your 'petitioning' process is working out. From where I sit, I'd say your record on it is abysmal.

As for whining, when the Republican Party governs in a conservative fashion, I'll stop whining. You'll never hear me whining about tax cuts, balanced budgets, laid off government employees, welfare reform, border security, deporting illegal immigrants, slashing government subsidies, school privatization - well you probably get the picture. (This things are known as 'conservatism,' you might have heard of it?) Since those things have been in short supply, I guess I whine just a tad bit.

By the way, I don't hesitate to praise your work when I agree with it. I'm not against you, just some of your ideas. This isn't personal, though you tend to really individualize issues on this board. Ever consider relaxing for a change?

here you sit thinking you know something about me and feeling pretty smug.

I work on campaigns and I have since I was first legally allowed to do so in 2000. I do phone banks and GOTV. And I write here.

As to relaxing, I do that with friends.

Streif. I didn't say you didn't phone bank or work on activism in some way. I was commenting on what I do, not what you do. I'm glad that you are engaged, which earns you credence that others who are merely cyberspace junkies don't have.

Everything isn't a personal attack on you Streif. I was responding to your crack about my whining, and pointing out that I am out there and not merely sitting around in my PJs complaining.

But I stand by my statement in any case. Let me know how far you're getting with the current crop of (most) Republicans on the Hill when the only threat you can make is, "I'll vote for you next time, but by gum, in 2008 (or 2012 for Senators) I'll be out there in the primaries for a real conservative you RINO!"

Yep, that'll horrify them.

know how to make this any more clear. My only issue is a Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. That's it. I'll take said Republican in whatever color presented to me in the general election because if I stay home I am voting Democrat.

276,000 results for the google search: hastert corrupt

337,000 for hastert fraud

490,000 for hastert criminal

And don't forget about his receipt of about $70,000 in contributions from clients of Jack Abramoff.

So let's not just assume he's as pure as freshly-fallen snow.

This "276,000 results for the google search: hastert corrupt - 337,000 for hastert fraud -490,000 for hastert criminal" is the second most ridiculous thing I've seen today! And if you need an explanation why that would be the Third.

Second, no one was assuming anything the poster was obviously here to hit and run with some foolish nonsense.

Good day to you sir!

there are 266,000 Google results for foley corrupt and you're concerned about all that crazy talk about de-Foley-ating.

Seriously though, I concede your point about the fallacy of Google results, but let's be clear here: a lot of people don't trust Hastert and maybe now you trust him less as a result of the latest news.

and you've got a point :-)

...with its own Independent Police Force this time--problem solved.

Vote third party, vote Democrat or sit at home and you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.