House

Tsk, tsk, President Bush, for grounding another one of your administration officials from testifying about Plamegate.

Bush has once again asserted executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to comply with a House Government Oversight Committee subpoena for material on the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Panel Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., held off a contempt vote for Mukasey, but not for too long. He last week told Karl Rove he couldn't testify, either.

Waxman's committee wants documents of FBI interviews of Vice President Dick Cheney over the Plame affair. It also would like to see documents involving conversations between special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Cheney, and notes from the 2003 State of the Union address, during which Bush uttered those "16 words" about Saddam Hussein allegedly trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger. Waxman asked for the documents over a year ago, then subpoenaed them when the White House ignored the request.

Waxman rejected Mukasey's suggestion that Cheney's FBI interview on the CIA leak should be protected by the privilege claim - and therefore not turned over to the panel.

"We'll act in the reasonable and appropriate period of time," Waxman, D-Calif., said. This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person ... If the vice president did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?"

Karl Rove's no-show before a House subcommittee over the politicization of the Bush Justice Department has more than a few Democrats peeved.

Local Democrats in Virginia are calling on U.S Rep. Thelma Drake, R-Va., to cancel her sold-out Friday fundraiser at Ruth's Chris Steak House in Virginia Beach with Rove as the featured guest because the former Bush adviser defied the congressional subpoena last week, The Virginian-Pilot reports.

Drake's campaign manager blasted the action as "partisan political theater."

"We have rules, and there are consequences for people who don't follow rules," said state Delegate Bobby Mathieson, D-Virginia Beach.

Delegate Joe Bouchard, D-Virginia Beach, said Rove appearing at a Drake event showed that "she is appearing to endorse his defiance of Congress."

Drake campaign manager Corry Bliss welcomed Rove. "Instead of working on a comprehensive solution to the energy crisis... Democrats would rather engage in partisan political issues on inside the Beltway issues than address high gas and food prices."

A spokesman for Drake's opponent, Glenn Nye, said, "It's disappointing that Thelma Drake would bring Karl Rove here to eat steak and continue to play Washington partisan political games."

There's a little tit-for-tat over Twitter going on on Capitol Hill.

John McCain might not be the most Internet-savvy of his Hill colleagues, but some pols (or, in many cases, their staffers) have taken quite a liking to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, a microblogging site many users utilize to tell the world what they're doing at any given time.

But to those tech-savvy Twitterers' (Twitterers'? Tweets'? Twits'?) dismay, some House leaders are trying to regulate a bit what they can post on the congressional Web sites, and where he or she can do it. That may eventually mean social networking sites are off limits.

Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., chairman of the franking committee, is heading up the effort to impose the new guidelines and to prevent congressional members from using public money to communicate on outside sites that contain political or commercial advertisements.

But representatives like John Culberson, R-Texas, are decrying the move, saying it's a free speech issue. Culberson has a long message on his Web site today explaining how he uses Qik, Twitter, Utterz and Ustream to communicate with constituents and others interested in debating issues. He says he personally sends text messages through Twitter on the House floor, soliciting constituents' input on current legislation.

Did blogging about the U.S. Attorneys purge get a long time University of Alabama employee fired? Lindsay Beyerstein of Raw Story reports that Roger Shuler, who has followed the saga on his blog for over a year, believes he was fired from his job for blogging about Alabama U.S. Attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary.

For the last 12 years Shuler worked as an editor for the University of Alabama Birmingham publications office before he was fired in May over a billing dispute that was unrelated to blogging. Harper's Magazine writer Scott Horton, who covers the vast scandal, told Raw Story, "Shuler's problem arose not because he blogged nor because he did so from his workplace, because it's clear he didn't. His problem came from the fact that he wrote critical, well received insights targeting a number of very powerful figures in Alabama."

In February, 60 minutes aired (not in parts of Alabama) a feature on Karl Rove's role in former Governor Don Siegelman's prosecution. Suspicions that the politicization of the Justice Department, questionable prosecutions and the purge of several U.S. Attorneys were connected led to a subpoena from a House subcommittee that Rove failed to honor yesterday. Siegelman took to the blogs today demanding Rove be held in contempt for failing to appear and he may get his wish if a determined John Conyers has anything to say about it.

President Bush signed a revamped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into law last week at the White House. The bill reestablishes the Bush Administration's terrorist surveillance program, which had lapsed when the Protect America Act of 2007 expired in February. The Bush Administration counts the passage of the bill as a victory both in its efforts to protect the country from terrorist attacks and in its design to provide the next Administration with all the tools necessary to keep the country safe into the future.

The bill's detractors, and critics of the surveillance it authorizes, see the whole issue differently. Civil liberties advocates complain that the law gives the government too much authority, and provides too little oversight, to listen in on the conversations of ordinary Americans. They say that the program is a violation of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as a violation of FISA itself. Administration critics see the program as a first step on a slippery slope toward a police state, where all communications are subject to prying government eyes and ears.

But the program is nothing of the kind. It is a necessary part of fighting the war on terrorism. Surveillance has always been conducted in war. Only the times and tools change. The difference in this war is that the enemy could be hiding among us, plotting and planning. Whereas in prior wars, the enemy was safely overseas. The passage of the new FISA, complete with the authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping, is a triumph of reason over emotion, pragmatism over ideology, and bipartisanship over polarization.

Former White House adviser Karl Rove, the man once dubbed "Bush's Brain," didn't show up - despite a congressional subpoena - to a hearing today about allegations of political pressure at Bush's Justice Department.

It turns out, President Bush himself directed Rove to snub the subpoena.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers yesterday, saying Rove would not be at today's hearing since he is "immune from compelled Congressional testimony" because of his position as a former immediate adviser to the president and because the subject matter has to do with issues that went on during his tenure in the White House.

"Although I know you would prefer otherwise, Mr. Rove is simply not free to take a position inconsistent with that asserted by the president," Luskin wrote. "The White House has reaffirmed the Executive Branch position that immediate Presidential advisers have immunity in this situation and has directed Mr. Rove not to appear."

The July 9 letter from the White House to Luskin, telling Rove not to appear, was written by Bush counsel Fred Fielding and can also be found here. It says:

"Mr. Rove is not required to appear in response to the Committee's subpoena. Accordingly, the President has directed him not to do so."

Two former Secretaries of State, James Baker III, a Republican, and Warren Christopher, a Democrat, chaired a commission looking into the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution was passed by Congress toward the end of the Vietnam War and was intended to revamp the way that the nation was led into armed conflict. The resolution states that the president may only take the armed forced into conflict with the express approval of Congress through an authorization or a declaration of war. President Nixon vetoed the resolution when it passed, calling it unconstitutional, a position supported by every president since. Congress was able to override that veto.

Baker and Christopher admit that the resolution may indeed be unconstitutional and have proposed a new law aimed not at fixing the War Powers Resolution, but at creating a new regime for executive and legislative branch cooperation in matters of war and defense.

"Our proposed new law, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009, does not pretend to resolve the underlying constitutional issues - only a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision could do that. It would reserve the ability of both Congress and the president to assert their constitutional war powers. In drawing up the statute we focused on a common theme that almost all past proposals shared: the importance of meaningful consultation between the president and Congress before the nation is committed to war."

The Constitution divides the war powers of the federal government between Congress and the president. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military and has exclusive authority to command the armed forces in war time. Congress has the sole authority to declare war, although it has not done so since World War II, and controls the funding for military operations. The president has Constitutional authority to use military force in times of emergency or defensive necessity, but must go to Congress for authorization if hostilities are expected to last for an unspecified longer period of time. It is that lack of specificity that Baker and Christopher are trying to address with their proposal.

At least he's in double digits. Rasmussen is out with a poll that finds just 9% -- NINE percent! -- of voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Not surprisingly, a number that low is unprecedented. It's the first time that rating has fallen to single digits since Rasmussen started polling.

Congress hasn't received higher than a 15% approval rating all year. Here's the breakdown by party:

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

But wait, there's more. Independent voters, those not party affiliated, are especially unimpressed with our representatives on Capitol Hill. Only 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings.

What's the source of the cynicism?

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

Hmmm. Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports that Democratic Representative Henry Waxman may introduce a bill that would keep political advisers from officially serving in the White House. Members of Congress already operate under similar conditions. The law would prevent another Karl Rove-type hybrid official. Rove guided President Bush's 2004 reelection while earning a salary as a member of the president's staff.

Waxman asked rhetorically, "Why should we be using taxpayer dollars to have a person solely in charge of politics in the White House? Can you imagine the reaction if each member of Congress had a campaign person paid for with taxpayer dollars?"

I can imagine that reaction--there would be no reaction because Waxman is talking about a nuance very few voters understand. Rove's move into the White House in 2000 was widely unprecedented (and ignored).

In his book The Architect journalist Wayne Slater explained the inherent conflict of interest.

Here's another peek at what some of your campaign contributions go toward. Hint: They're loud, colorful and illegal in some states.

Yes, they're fireworks. The Center for Responsive Politics says the general consensus is: Set off the sparkle, win the White House.

Not only do politicians buy fireworks for events on the campaign trail (no news there), but the fireworks industry is tossing a fair amount of cash at lawmakers and lobbying efforts to battle what it views as unfair regulations post Sept. 11.

Since 2000, federal candidates, parties and committees have spent almost $50,700 on fireworks for advertising and fundraising. The Republicans spent far more in the White House races. The Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign spent nearly one-fourth of that $50,700 for an event in New Castle, Pa., the nation's fireworks capital. The Gore-Lieberman camp apparently spent nothing. The Republican National Committee spent $13,000 for the 2004 White House race, while John Kerry only spent half of that.