Democrat. The New Republican

Now, we took the last election seriously. We knew what was at stake and even stayed sober that day. Well, until after we voted anyway (Third in line at 6:45 a.m.). Like most of the Americans that voted that day we were concerned that the country was being taken in directions that the founding fathers would have found...erm...how you say, problematic. And like most Americans who voted that day we heaved a cautionary sigh of relief when the counts were tallied and it looked like some electoral friction was about to be applied to the downhill rush to catastrophe that is otherwise known as the Bush administration.

Sigh. What children we were, how naive, how innocent, how unnecessarily sober.

The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on basically anybody. "Look, the only way to secure our constitutional freedoms is to destroy them. But just for a little while," said one leading democratic representative.

The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate's approval Friday, sends the bill to Bush for his signature. "Man, this voting stuff is sure cutting into our meaningless hearings," said an aide to one democratic senator.

The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving people who talk "reasonably believed to be somewhere on the planet." Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents.

Yeah. Like that isn't happening already.

"Congress? Oversight? Hahahahahaha!!," Said White House Press Secretary Tony Snowjob. "You know, at first we were kind of worried that the democrats might actually try to get in our way seeing as they won the election and all. You know, popular mandate, voice of the people, yadda, yadda, yadda. Turns out we didn't need to worry. Hey American voter. Who's your daddy now?"

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between carbon based life forms that are routed through equipment on any of the inner planets of the solar system. If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court. Or not, depending on if the president felt like it.

Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush's veto threats and the impending August recess. "What's the point of passing a bill that the president would veto," said one democratic staffer. "He'd just threaten to hold his breath until he passed out and we'd just have to start all over again. Plus it's August. I want to get out of here. Just don't use your cell until after the next election, that's all."

If an American's communications are swept up in surveillance of an other American, said Representative Dan Lungren,. "We go through a process called eavesdropping and get rid of the records unless there is reason to suspect the American is a democrat. Or an independent, we're not sure about them either."

Any chance the Supreme Court might find this law unconstitutional? Oh wait, Bush owns the court too. See, if you just get drunk enough so you don't remember who you voted for, you wouldn't feel so crummy right about now.

Battle Of The Beltway Bozos

Oh we're back Bushie, and it's on, so bring your lunch 'cause it's going to be an all day affair. Congressmen returning from their Independence Day break are ready to cave to the White House again. "Well, the Congresswomen went home too," said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi," But they're not back yet because everything they put on makes them look fat."

There was relatively high tension on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue as majority Democrats — and increasing numbers of Republicans — challenged Bush's Iraq war policy. "Well, if by 'challenged' you mean whined," said White House Press Secretary Tony Snowjob.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, ranking republican on the Homeland Security Committee there had been "a steady erosion for the president's policy because we're never going to get reelected with that bozo hanging around our necks. Oh, and folks are dying too."

"Oooo. So what are you going to do about it Collins? Pass a law? Take our money away from us? I'm shaking in my boots," Snowjob replied.

Meanwhile, several Democratic-run investigations are playing out this week as they head toward contempt of Congress citations and, if neither side yields, federal court. "I got your contempt of Congress right here," said White House Counselor Fred Fielding. "You think the Libby commutation was something? Keep it up and you'll see pardons and commutations like you wouldn't believe."

In a pair of hearings, the House Judiciary Committee will look at Bush's commutation last week of Libby's prison sentence for obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case. "Go ahead and 'look,'" said Snowjob. Ain't nothing you can do about it. Punks."

The next day, the House panel is expected to turn to the prosecutor firings and has scheduled testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. It's unclear whether she will appear. "It's only unclear if you think we give a rip about subpoenas," Snowjob said. "I put mine in the bottom of my birdcage."

Democrats expect to resume legislative challenges to Bush's policy on the war as the Senate this week takes up a major defense spending bill. "And this time we're really going to make him sweat before we give him the money," said one aide to a democratic senator.

"The president argued that we needed to undertake the surge in order to give the Iraq government the time, the space to pursue the political reforms," Collins said. "That hasn't happened and that's why you see a real change in support for the Iraq strategy. Well, if by change you mean we're going to say bad things about the war. Probably we'll just give him the money anyway though."

In Baghdad Monday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned that a quick American troop withdrawal could lead to civil war and the collapse of the Iraqi state. "Oh wait. We have that now," Zebari added. "Let me get back to you."

Leahy and others said they suspect that Bush commuted Libby's sentence to keep vice president Dick Cheney's former chief of staff from revealing internal White House discussions. "Well that's pretty stupid," Snowjob said. "We were never going to reveal those discussions anyway. The president just let Libby off because he was the only one stupid enough to get caught lying."

White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Bush declared executive privilege on the documents subpoenaed by the committees. He argued that releasing them would damage the confidential nature of advice given the president. "Besides, they've got chocolate milk stains all over them.

Ethics Reform Bogged Down In Congress. In Other News, Sun To Rise In The East Tomorrow

trust. It was Poor democrats. Once they were the party that was going to put the trust back in Public Trust. They were going to be Mr. Smith in Washington all over again, only this time there would be a bunch of Mr. and a few Ms. Smiths. Well, never judge a republican until you've walked a mile in their shoes, especially if those shoes are a pair of Salvatore Ferragamos given to you by a "friend" from the oil industry.

Toughening ethics laws, once a priority of Democrats, has bogged down in Congress as party leaders find their campaign promises colliding with lawmakers' re-election concerns. "Well, truth be told, we were only interested in the Republicans' ethics," said one democratic congressional aide. "We never promised to clean up our own act."

Two months have passed since a task force was supposed to have recommended how an independent panel might avoid ethics complaints before they go to the House ethics committee. A key sticking point is opposition in both parties to letting outsiders file complaints against members of Congress. "Can you imagine what chaos it will be if we let common citizens watchdog us?" said one representative who asked not to be identified.

Currently, only House members can initiate an ethics probe. "And that's the way god intended it," the representative said. "We got so much dirt on each other it'll be a cold day in H E double hockey sticks before one representative rats on another."

Public watchdog groups call the restriction self-serving and unreasonable. "Well duh," said an aide to an ethics committee member. "You think we're stupid or something?"

Meanwhile, a Senate spat over rules governing senators' requests for special pork in their home states is blocking efforts to merge into one bill Senate and House measures to restrict lawmakers' dealings with lobbyists. "Yeah, we were hoping to block the bill with something a little more technical, but this is the best we could do, said one senator. "Say, shouldn't you guys be looking for missing white women or something? There's bound to be one somewhere."

"I find it distressing that they haven't dealt with these issues," Craig Holman of Public Citizen said, referring particularly to the House task force. "Oh wait a minute. This is Congress we're talking about. Never mind."

For years, self-described government-reform groups have denounced the House ethics committee, which is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, as listless and largely toothless. "You say that like it's a bad thing," said one committee member.

On January 31, Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed a bipartisan task force to recommend whether an independent panel of nonmembers should investigate ethics complaints and play a role in avoiding, rewriting, and eviscerating rules of conduct. That report was due May 1. "So the basic question is, should we investigate ourselves, or should we do it right," said an aide to Pelosi. "What do you think we're going to do?"

completed," said Task force members privately briefed colleagues on a plan in which the speaker and minority leader would each appoint three members to a panel that would look at complaints — from members or nonmembers — and recommend whether the House ethics committee should bury them. "This would be a totally independent panel of members, and with three republicans and three democrats. We're sure any investigation it undertook would be quickly and professionally done away with," said Pelosi's aide.

Watchdog groups called the plan weak, especially because the new panel would lack subpoena powers to compel testimony and demand documents. The panel "would have a free hand to recommend the dismissal of a complaint and would be greatly restricted in recommending anything else," lawmakers were told in a letter last week from groups including Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and the Campaign Legal Center.

Yeah. We worked hard on that," said one member of the house ethics committee. "Now that's government in action."

Some watchdog groups are balking at a second proposal floated by task force members. It would require any group that lodges an ethics complaint against a House member to reveal its donors.

Many lawmakers are insisting on such disclosures, saying the public should know as much as possible about people behind allegations that could hurt a politician's meal ticket. "See, the thing is, with these donor lists it will be a lot easier for us to change the subject from the fact that we're all a bunch of low life scum bags to the fact that someone from the other party once gave a contribution to the group charging us with being low life scum bags," said one member of the task group. "Hey, is that a white woman being kidnapped over there?"

Some Republicans particularly like the disclosure proposal because they believe groups such as Common Cause are heavily financed by Democrats and liberals. "If we had this law before, half the republican congressional delegation wouldn't be in or heading for prison right now," said one republican.