For those of a Republican bent, Election Day wasn't much fun. But that's not to say that defeat doesn't bring with it certain muted pleasures of its own. Such as watching the liberal media take the Dem congressional majority to task as it begins to moonwalk away from various campaign promises. Chief among those pledges was this one, part of the DNC's official 6-Point Plan for 2006:
"We want to close the remaining gaps in our security by enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations."
One of the most important 9/11 panel recommendations called for Congress to reform its own house when it comes to the oversight of intelligence. This might sound like inside baseball, but it's important. The basic notion is this: intelligence agencies will be most responsive to those congressional committees that control their budgets. The way Congress is currently organized, the various committees on intelligence - those with the most expertise in the area - are effectively toothless. They have no budget control over the intelligence agencies they theoretically oversee. Instead, budgetary control is in the hands of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees.
The Dems had promised to change this, but now that they're in power, they've effectively ditched the idea, loath to offend the powerful chairmen of the committees who would be stripped of the budgetary authority. Those wanting more details will find them in this WaPo article.
The New York Times is not pleased. In its editorial of this morning Cherry-Picking Campaign Promises, the Gray Lady takes the Dems to task in these terms:
"[T]he victors seem to be having second thoughts. Instead of attempting wholesale committee reform in the first weeks of Congress, Democratic leaders may punt the idea toward oblivion in some sort of a study panel, according to The Washington Post. Nothing could be more disappointing to voters. . . Surely, the leaders of the new Congress know they will be risking the nation’s security, far more than their credibility, if they retreat from the vow to do a stronger job of oversight."
The liberal Seattle Times has a similar editorial out today.
The internecine Dem wars might not have the sheer entertainment value of the impending NFL playoffs. But for GOP fans still licking their Election Day wounds, they should still make for some satisfying spectator sport.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
WaPo 11/30/06:"Democrati
December 7, 2006 - 08:04 ET by Indiana JoeWaPo 11/30/06:
"Democratic aides yesterday chose to talk up what they will do in the opening hours of the 110th Congress. Plans are not complete, but the incoming Democratic majority is likely to expand efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; ensure the interoperability of communications equipment so first responders can communicate more effectively; develop a comprehensive screening system for air cargo; and establish a civil-liberties board to protect the public against intelligence agencies expanding their reach."
Interesting that the liberal media is actually holding the Dems' feet to the fire about their campaign pledges. How long it will actually LAST will be another point entirely. My guess is, it will fade away once the Dems actually assume power. Right now, it's a "free-swing" for the MSM to try to re-establish their "non-partisan" bona-fides. Too little, too late, IMHO.
Sound like most of those "points" the Dems chose to "talk up" are mere procedural issues, once again giving the appearance of "doing something" without really accomplishing anything of substance. I particularly like (NOT!) the "civil liberties board." Another hurdle to capturing, questioning, and punishing any terrorists we take into custody. Especially "home-grown" ones, such as Padilla.
The 110th Congress will, no doubt, be interesting to watch. It may also be pretty frightening, as well.
NYT Slaps Dems
December 7, 2006 - 08:08 ET by Senior Chief"We want to close the remaining gaps in our security by inacting the 9/11 commission recommendations".
I received an e-mail today with pictures of 07 Dec 1941 attached. Pearl Harbor was pulverized to pieces. I can hear screams from my fellow Sailors as they encounter their deaths and warships sinking to their deathbed...but I can also see the resolve of my remaining fellow comrades who refused to give up even unto death. America then had backbones, were resolute and were not weak people- that lead us to victory and the surrender of those people who did it to us...
Imagine if America responded 9/11 the way we responded 12/7... 9/11 Commission, Iraq Surrender Group, etc. will not be formed, or their recommendation matters. We cannot negotiate to enemies whose objective in life is to kill us, to topple us, to pulverize us. We become a country of appeasers and negotiators- which will NEVER WIN wars. We know who our enemies are. We know how to fight war and we know how to WIN WARS. Commissions and committees will not win wars. We need our government and our people to be on our side, and we need people with big kahonas to lead us.
0755 in Hawaii, 1155 CST on 7 Dec
December 7, 2006 - 12:54 ET by UnsaneInteresting I read your post now, Senior Chief. For, according to my watch, the precise 65th anniversary of Pearl Harbor is....now.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
I hate it when they hijack th
December 7, 2006 - 08:12 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI hate it when they hijack the word "Democratic". It's not theirs and they have taken it and made people who don't pay attention think (via proxy) that the Democrats are the only party that represents Democracy.
I refuse to call them the Democratic Party.... They are the Democrat Party and they are made up of Democrat Congressmen and Democrat Senators.
What is the 6 point plan that
December 7, 2006 - 08:25 ET by RangerTomWhat is the 6 point plan that they have? Where is it? All the link says is that they have a plan. Mike Tyson said everyone has a plan until they get hit in the mouth. Looks like the dems are hitting themselves in the mouth. They are not going to enforce the border and they are not going to implement all of th 911 commission recommendations. That's the real plan.
Screw diversity, celebrate competancy
Way to go NYT! Now about th
December 7, 2006 - 09:40 ET by ucWay to go NYT! Now about the late 1940's and also sound logical diagrams >> since the "office of first spouse" is a part of the "office of the President" and only filled by elected president how is it that the 22 Amendment isn't specifically excluding a term limited president from all and any part of past office? Doesn't it also stand to reason that a past term limited president is also excluded in the spirit of the amendment from any office in the line of succession to such office as now limited from? I do wish the media lawyers would put a stop to this farse that really should be a publicized debate. Did Bill brainwash Hillary into thinking this wasn't so so that he could get the full eight years to himself? A candidate for president should not by being elected be able to put a term limited president back into any part of "office of the President" even the "office of the spouse." For any other interpretation should have made the 22 Amendment many pages long >> I never run out of new possible legal infringements on the spirit of the term limit law without also applying to the spouse of same term. One favorite is the spousal laws about shared communication amongst same >> worse than wire tapping as towards transparency of office. Just some logical thinking.
uc, you raise a point that ha
December 7, 2006 - 09:51 ET by Indiana Joeuc, you raise a point that had occurred to me when I first heard the idea of a "Clinton-Clinton" ticket bandied about. The SPIRIT of the 22nd Amendment would seem to preclude the election of a two-term President to any office that fell in line of succession to the Presidency, PARTICULARLY the office of VP, whose only REAL function is to replace the President if and when needed.
BUT, I can see lawyers arguing that in such a case, the person in question had NOT RUN for the Presidency, so the WORDING of the Amendment may prevent that particular argument from succeeding.
A valid issue, though, I think.
<edit> In fact, the idea that the SPOUSE (Hillary, in this case) had NOT RUN, nor been ELECTED to the office would beg the same argument in re: the 22nd Amendment. After all, she was not ELECTED President, and the whole concept of a "co-presidency" did not exist in ANYONE'S mind, I believe, until the Clintons first proposed it. Certainly, it doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution, to my knowledge. <end edit>
Demos
December 7, 2006 - 10:22 ET by iveseenitallThe Demos are going to fulfill their promises and act for the good of this nation. And I've just learned of a great bargain on a bridge in Brooklyn, N.Y.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I think I already bought an o
December 7, 2006 - 11:13 ET by Indiana JoeI think I already bought an option on that one.... ;^D