(w). v. Congress

The “Washington Post” ran a piece this morning highlighting the Democratic Party’s “confrontational” approach to our woebegone and isolated president, which is good news, although scribe Jonathan Weisman’s coverage tilts Bushway (as it were).

From highwayscribery’s unique anarcho-syndical perspective it is right and proper the Dems challenge the White House on a “range of issues,” as Weisman noted, “such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders...”

The article observed that Bush is prepared to veto 16 bills already having passed the House and Senate since the new Democratic Congress convened back in January.

“Despite the threats,” Weisman notes, “Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.”

But for the highway scribe’s money Weisman tarries too long and lends too much undiluted credence to the National Republican Committee’s warning of a “political price” at the polls, while coloring the Democratic push with his own unsolicited characterization of things that are “risky,” or ascribing the sense our civil rights have been abused to the Democratic Party, as opposed to the American people.

The distinction, you see, is crucial. If the stances are purely a function of the party, then naturally, they are “ideological.” If they are the expressed will of the majority of Americans, then Weisman, Bush, and all the ( r)epublican hacks the reporter puffs his piece up with are talking out their hats.

He also chats with former Democratic congressman and Clinton White House aide, Leon Panetta, who noted that, “If they [Dems] go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass bills and president vetoes them, that’s a recipe for losing seats in the next election.”

Now the lowly and inconsequential scribe doesn’t want to bang heads with a luminary as luminescent as Panetta, but he would point out the risk is just as steep for Bush, whom Weisman dubs “firm” in his plans to diss Congress, which, in turn, is "opening new fronts against the (p)resident."

Why are these laws "against" the (p)resident rather than gifts to the American people?

But wait! Couldn’t we argue that the Congressional mandate is newly minted and more reflective of the American peoples’ will than Bush’s distant 2004 reelection now tainted with a serious case of buyers’ remorse?

the scribe would suggest we could and therefore does.

After the November elections Bush talked about working with the Democrats because, he said, “That is what the American people expect of us. To get things done.”

Of course, since he took office in 2000 as a “uniter,” Bush’s conception of working together has been that of a pliant Democratic opposition signing-on to his harebrained schemes for taking over the world, repressing democratic rights at home, and bankrupting the country.

But don’t take the scribe’s high partisan word for it, read this stunning interview with former Bushie Matthew Dowd on why he thinks the (p)resident let he, and the rest of the country, down with his divisive agenda.

Weisman talks about all the legislation the Dems plan to confront (w) with and which include permitting security screeners to organize a union (a right consecrated in American law), “tough new standards for labor rights and environmental regulations” attached to any new fast-track free trade negotiation authority, dumping the awful law on military tribunals, closing the aforementioned American Gulag in Cuba, and allowing the government to negotiate prices for prescription benefits under the Medicare law.

A shocking ideological agenda!

Weisman can’t help infusing his own judgement into the piece: “For Republicans, such legislative gambits could prove to be a political gift.”

Says who? Maybe he should get a blog where he can enshrine the words of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R), who thinks closing Guantanamo would “import dangerous terrorists...into American communities,” as worthy of quotation and inclusion in serious debate.

That's it! Weisman should get a blog, because his personal and confused take on national politics doesn’t belong in a paper of record like “The Post."