White House Puts Limits on Queries From Democrats By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 7, 2003; Page A29 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." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9708-2003Nov6.html
And just to keep them straight, the democrats will wear a special colorful patch on their clothing... No, wait, there's something bad about that I think.
You know, I would say "Unbelievable," but there are few things this regime does anymore that surprises me.
Oh, come on guys, we're just "extemists." You know, us and 97% of the globe and 95% of former administrations. We are definitely on the fringe here.
I could be flippant and say, "There's an 'r' in extremists", B-Bob, but I won't. Seriously, this administration it getting worse and worse. It's really frightening when you add up the things they are doing and look at the trend. This country and the system that runs it is in deep trouble. The trouble starts at the top. And the people behind Bush are getting more and more brazen about what they're doing. They just tossed away years of work by the EPA to get the utility industry to curb their emissions and there is scarcely a peep of protest. I think the country is numb from the rate of corruption going on in this administration and distracted by the war. (one of those "unintended consequences" of war I was talking about)
Funny thing, or maybe not so funny thing, is that these people propose things for the sake of order/organization and then have the audacity to claim what they effectively are proposing is not what they meant to effectively propose. They're either the biggest morons in the country or the most devious bastards and that pretty much applies to about everything this administration has done from Kyoto to Iraq.
"I'm a uniter not a divider." - GW Bush 2000 election. It's gonna be so sweet when I help vote this jackass out of office.
No kidding. I might even go against my principles and vote for a Democrat, if their nominee is worth it to me.
well, you're going to have to vote early and vote often. as the exerpt from zell miller's book makes clear in another thread, if the 2004 election results in the exact same popular vote outcome, and the exact same red/blue state result as 2000, GWB's margin of victory will be 18 electoral votes.
Um, it didn't take a book to tell any person with a brain that this would be true. Uh, if the Rockets win exactly the same number of games last year, they'll have the same number of wins as last year.
Not only that, but if we lose the same number of games as last year, our win/loss percentage will be identical.
the point is he won by 4 electoral votes in 2000 and the same popular vote/state breakdown produces an 18 vote margin in 2004. the reality of the elctoral college makes victory for a democrat in 2004 that much more difficult. what was it i said about condescending democrats in another thread...?
You just play one on TV. Seriously, I guess the Bush Admin got tired of giving stupid answers to stupid questions, so they did what they did. And if you heard some of the rheteroic coming from the leftward side of the aisle directed at GWB, I'd give them the old "You're always number one with me," salute to their questions as well. The Democrats don't have a chance. All of their candidates are totally unelectable in the South, especially Dean and especially after his put-down on Southerners with his "I want the votes of people who fly Confederate flags and spit tobacco."
the point is he won by 4 electoral votes in 2000 and the same popular vote/state breakdown produces an 18 vote margin in 2004. the reality of the elctoral college makes victory for a democrat in 2004 that much more difficult. what was it i said about condescending democrats in another thread...? Except if 500 more people vote Democrat in Florida, then the Democratic nominee wins by around 30 electoral votes, giving that nominee some margin to actually lose a few other states that Gore won in 2000.
