Hillary Clinton: Dare to Compete

Democratic Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., walks off stage with parting gifts, after speaking at a graduation ceremony for McLean High School, Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at Constitution Hall in Washington. McLean High School is located in McLean, Va. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Hillary Clinton proved Virginia is "in play" in 2008 with the standing ovation before and after her speech to the graduating class of McLean High School on Wednesday at DAR Constitution Hall.

Senator Clinton fullfilled all the requirements of a graduation speaker. She was prompt, funny, inspiring, and over in 10 minutes.

She told about the difficulty sending Chelsea off from high school to college. Luckily, she made sure her daughter was prepared -- with plenty of shelf paper for her new dorm.

She wrapped up with a story she has told from time to time. It was 1999, and Clinton was being introduced by the captain of a girl's basketball team -- in the Chelsea-Clinton neighborhood in NYC. The program was one designed to encourage girls to participate in sports, called "Dare to Compete." Sofia Totti, the student, gave a verbal nod to the great speculation swirling in New York at the time about Mrs. Clinton's possible Senate run. Totti would say she decided her speech would be the perfect opportunity for a little encouragement and told the audience that Mrs. Clinton was an athlete, too: "hopefully a runner."

"Mrs. Clinton came to shake my hand and gave me a smile, acknowledging my comment," Ms. Totti said. Still clutching the first lady's hand, she whispered, "Dare to compete, Mrs. Clinton. Dare to compete."

Clinton said Totti's challenge motivated her successful campaign. The Senator challenged all the graduates to Dare to Compete.

Hillary's approval ratings are up today. Bush's are sinking lower.

Anyone with video? I'm working on getting some clips of my own linked here.

Hard cases make bad law

A good article here.

The yawning divide between reality and what such laws say should happen is what produces the dilemmas that lead to amnesties. Immigration law has produced a situation where an estimated 12 million people in the country -- most of whom look, sound and act like law-abiding citizens -- are supposed to be apprehended, prosecuted and deported, a job that is not only well beyond the capacity of the police and courts, but would wreck substantial parts of the economy were it attempted.

"No one is so stupid as to think police are going to go out and round up 12 million illegal immigrants," said Husak, at Rutgers University. "Ninety million living Americans have used illegal drugs. It is inconceivable you can punish them. Downloading copyrighted music [without paying for it] -- half or more of all teenagers are guilty. No one is going to enforce such laws."

Scooter Libby sentenced for manipulating news -- and WaPo still protects Tom Davis

NYT, June 5 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., once one of the most powerful men in government as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, was sentenced today to two and a half years [30 months] in prison for lying to a grand jury and F.B.I. agents who were investigating the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative during a fierce debate over the war in Iraq.

What Scooter Libby did was a serious, insidiuous, anti-democratic control of information, and WaPo itself continues to ignore political corruption in exchange for Access Journalism.

Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame until that line of investigation was cut off by the repeated lies from Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The Scooter Libby trial disclosed what the press and administration already know: for this administration, a critical part of its media dis-information campaign includes controlling the timing of press reports. If they can't stop a story before it publishes, the next best thing is controlling when a story publishes.

The Post is absolutley giddy when it reports on how the NYT and Judith Martin were involved in this game, but silent on it's own failure to cover corruption for its own Access Journalism. In other words, politicians don't have to schedule a "Saturday night Massacre." The Post will schedule it for them.

WAPO: "With a candor that is frowned upon at the White House, explained Cheney's former top press assistant," Cathie Martin, explained how important it was to influence timing of news reports critical of politicians.

"Fewer people pay attention to it later on Friday," Martin testified. "And in our view, fewer people are paying attention on Saturday, when it's reported."

Examples include not only Bob Woodward's involvement in keeping the cover up going in Plamegate, on black hole prisons, and the Ford interview criticizing Bush. They include the Post's baseball buddy, Tom Davis.

• The first of several Post stories by Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow on Tom Davis and his own campaign finance scandal followed this formula. It ran on Friday, July 28, 2006 before the July 4th weekend. Washington, DC was empty by then, and most holiday travelers were on the road. Tom Davis couldn't have asked for better scheduling if he had selected the date himself.
  
• Because it's customary to complete a series before running the first article, the following articles in this entire series should have been written by that July date. Nevertheless, the next article in the series would not run until the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. During those 4 months, his election was over. Congress had recessed, again, the city was empty, and most holiday travelers were going through airport security. Davis must have wondered how this good fortune could continue.
  
• But it did last last. The third installment did not run until almost two weeks later, and on a Saturday. Saturday is one of the lowest circulation days for most newspapers.

Additional stories in the Post on Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay don't even mention that Davis was one of very few Congressman singled out for donations from Jack Abramoff's tribal clients, and they don;t mention that he's one of only three Congressmen who received campaign contributions from Abramoff. They don't mention his admission that he knew about Walter Reed in 2004, and that he's named on the famous Lurita Doan GSA slides of candidates who should received campaign help from federal employees.

These aren't neo-cons who are targeted by the administration. It's reputable journalists who seem otherwise credible. They fall for flattery.

Radar Contact: "It's Our Best Format"

At Libby's trial, Judith Miller's testimony showed how the administration and the press combine forces for access journalism:

In a steady but slightly nervous voice, Miller described how her relationship with Libby began: with a bit of flattery [of her writing].... Miller recalled Libby saying that "he liked my reporting ..."

"You look like a lawyer to me, honey." Taxi's Louie DePalma (Danny DeVito) on the pick up line he uses in a bar he knows where women go after they've learned they flunked the Bar exam.

When she "expressed a desire" for regular conversations, Libby said "he would prefer not to see his name in print," Miller said. "We could continue meeting as long as I would identify him as an administration official or senior administration official." She readily agreed.

So Libby would combat these leaks by leaking to Miller, she explained in a tone that indicated this was the most natural thing in the world.

Bill Hubbard's FDA Letter-Wrongly Blaming The FDA

If you want to know how contaminated pet food threatened livestock and the food supply in the US, read this. (The links are mine.)

The current FDA, suffering from a decade without a strong leader and another emerging scandal, needs tools to keep consumer safe, and it's not getting them. The administration's current plans, to close laboratories and facilities in N.J. and Puerto Rico, home to the country's major drug manufacturing operations, could cripple its enforcement ability.

This photograph is an FDA staffer with a typical drug application for the time, about 1965.

By William Hubbard, Monday, WaPo, May 8, 2006; Page A19

Last month the Government Accountability Office released another report criticizing the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to ensure the safety of prescription drugs. It seems to have become great sport for public officials to revel in FDA shortcomings. Time after time in recent years, FDA scientists have warned of threats to the safety of the nation's food and drugs, sought new resources and tools to deal with those threats, and been duly dismissed. Yet when their predictions have come true, decision makers of all political stripes rush to bemoan the agency's failures.

* * * *

FDA scientists have done as they promised -- new drugs have been sped to market, and the FDA leads the world in approval times. But the companies often fail to do the needed safety studies, and Congress has taken no steps to allow the agency to compel them. FDA scientists also recognized that rapid drug approvals can miss important safety indicators and requested funding to create state-of-the-art systems to monitor drug safety. The new dollars that the White House proposed and Congress provided for this come to a nice round number: zero.

* * * *
For most of the FDA's 100-year history, presidents and congresses have recognized its importance to public health by giving it the resources and authority to respond to the rapid evolution in risks from the thousands of products it regulates. But for some years now, the agency's budget has remained essentially flat while major new responsibilities have been piled on. The results of this weakening of the agency are easy to document: Food inspections have dropped from a robust 50,000 in 1972 to about 5,000 today, meaning that U.S. food processors are inspected on average about every 10 years. The chance of a food product from overseas being inspected is infinitesimal. Most raw materials for our drugs come from foreign producers that are rarely inspected. The rate of quality-control failures found in manufacturing facilities by FDA inspectors has soared. Think your pacemaker, heart valve, microwave oven or morning vitamin was inspected? Dream on.

How much does Congress appropriate for the agency that has responsibility for the safety of the whole country's supply of food, drugs, vaccines, medical devices, cosmetics, animal foods and drugs, dietary supplements, and more? The same amount as Fairfax County, Va., provides for its schools.

The future could get worse...

[There are] developments and innovations [that] hold the promise of transforming the terrain of modern medicine and food production. FDA officials have been trying mightily to get the attention of decision makers who can give them the ability to adequately oversee these things. And, in a post-Sept. 11 world, there are new challenges to the food and drug supply that I cannot even hint at publicly.

Sens. Orrin Hatch and Edward Kennedy and a few other political leaders have expressed concern about the effects of starving what has been the world's foremost consumer protection agency. But most legislators are content to await the emergence of problems rather than head them off.

Maybe the FDA's scientists can keep their finger in the dike. Maybe we'll be lucky and avoid a major crisis. But maybe the great Dodger baseball executive Branch Rickey got it right: When asked how much luck played into his teams' success, he scoffed that luck was a residue of design. If we keep failing the FDA, and the FDA in turn fails, it's inevitable that our luck will run out.

The writer retired last year after more than 25 years at the Food and Drug Administration, the last 14 as associate commissioner.

Tom Davis and Lurita Doan

Several stories here and here in WaPo expose more corruption and taxpayer robbery this week. The only problem is the Post once again fails to mention the get-away car driver: Tom Davis.

Blogged more here, while Davis was head of the House Oversight committee, Lurita Doan of GSA was making sure that Republicans, including Davis, were given assignments, such as appearing in government public ceremonies and events, that would give them "ink" and time in the media in a favorable light.

First, Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow of WaPo report that the conclusion of the new Special Counsel's Report is that the "GSA Chief Violated the Hatch Act."

Today, WaPO reports that Doan has been asked to refresh her bad memory and testify again on June 7. That invitation is from new Oversight Committee chair Harvey Waxman. Will he ask her to explain why Tom Davis appears on the slide of politicians whose campaigns must be "helped" by federal employees on government time?

According to the first version of the report by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the Office said,"we recommend that the President take disciplinary action against Administrator Doan" because "her disregard for such protections and safeguards is serious and warrants punishment." Those passages were removed from the final version sent to Doan. The final version included a cover letter from Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch containing his "recommendation that the President take appropriate disciplinary action against you for your serious violation of the Hatch Act."

The second robbery is blogged here. According to WaPo, on April 12 the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas filed suit against Sun [Microsystems], alleging that the company violated the False Claims Act when it "made false statements to the government about its commercial sales practices and the discounts it offers to its commercial customers." While Davis ignored the fraud, he raked in the campaign contributions.

Republicans raise their hands against science

At the Republican debate, three Senators running for President, Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo, raised their hands to signify they don't believe in evolution.

Next, they raise their hands to show they don't believe in gravity. Can they still keep their hands up?

Hmmmmm... why not?

They say evolution is "only a theory." However, in science, a theory is more than a "hunch." A theory is a substantiated hypothesis.

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

How do these men demand - and get - respect for espousing a belief that is completely unsupported by evidence? Even more, how about for a belief that requires ignoring and denying evidence?

A hysterical commentary on the race to ignorance is here.

"Evolution is a hoax," began Brownback. "It is hubris of the highest degree for scientists to think they know more than God."

"You're right," continued Huckabee, "But let me add that I believe gravity and electricity are also demonic ideas intended to blind humans to the glory of the Almighty."

Tancredo added his voice. "So true, gentlemen. We have lost our way, and I for one, yearn for that bygone era when religion was respected and permeated every aspect of society. I'm not talking about the 1950s. I'm talking about the 1050s. The Middle Ages, when the natural order of society was in balance."

Overseeing the administration and the media

WaPo April 25, 2007

"Oversight is just as important, if not more important, than legislation," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The new investigations illustrate just how many questions went unanswered in the six years when Democrats "couldn't hold hearings, we couldn't compel information . . . all we could do was ask for it," he said.

Tom Davis (R-VA) used his Committee chairmanship for 12 years to cover up administration scandals and blackmail campaign contributions for himself and his wife. Now Davis is in the passenger seat. Entrenched incumbents had continued their law breaking, and honest politicians fell by the wayside, forced to compete with the crooks by joining them or leaving public service. Now Waxman is issuing subpoenas.

See the latest on the connection between the media and the cover ups on PBS tonight.

Since Democrats assumed control of Congress in January, they have hired more than 200 investigative staffers for key watchdog committees. They include lawyers, former reporters and congressional staffers who left oversight committees that had all but atrophied during the six years that the GOP controlled Congress and the White House. They have already begun a series of inquiries on subjects ranging from allegations of administration meddling in federal scientists' work on global warming and the General Services Administration's alleged work for Republican campaigns to how disproved claims that Iraq had purchased nuclear material from Niger evolved into a case for war.

If pregnant women have rights to bodily integrity, will everyone want some?

Right to Lifers killed Angela Carder: the sad story of pregnant Maryland resident Angela Stoner Carder, who died from a forcible delivery of her premature fetus, is detailed well here and on Wikipedia here.

"No party should be the mere instrument of another. In shared decision-making, the act of informed consent or informed refusal affirms and protects patient autonomy while acknowledging the physician's commitment to professional standards. We strongly believe that difficult medical decisions should be made within the doctor-patient relationship and not by the courts."

Do you agree? Do you think you have a right to bodily integrity? To marital privacy? To a prescription for birth control if a pregnancy could kill you? The ACLU's timeline of reproductive rights here describes state efforts to deny these self-evident rights.

The Supreme Court decided yesterday to officially pile on the attacks on decisions by pregnant women that increasingly include coerced cesarean sections and blood transfusions.

The law in question criminalizes "partial birth abortion." Despite the fact that "partial birth abortion," however distastefully described and rarely used, is not a true medical procedure, and is not defined in the law as to what true medical procedure might be the crime, the court said it was not vague. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists not only said the procedure could be medically necessary, but pointed out how the specially invited anti-choice witnesses who testified on the Nebraska statue lied in their testimony.

The most curious rationalization in this opinion is that the safety of patients need not be addressed at all in the ban. Nevertheless, Justice Kennedy does inject his concern by saying the State is just demonstrating concern for their mental health by protecting them from the "severe depression and loss of self-esteem" because of the choice. According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

"When a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue.”

From the Department of Theology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC:

...[B]ecause a [medical intervention for a fetus, in this case, a] cesarean section, unless there is a threat to her life [by the pregnancy], is not of any clear benefit to the woman, it is wrong to insist that a dying woman must always endure burdensome treatment for the sake of a viable fetus. Should the mother decide to take on such burdens, it is important also to recognize that a cesarean section is not always in the interest of the fetus simply because it is viable. Given the ambiguity of the prognosis for survival and the risks of significant handicaps for the preterm or low birth weight fetus, it may be ethically appropriate to omit an act on behalf of the fetus. Finally, the fact that the fetus' only chance of survival is a preterm delivery does not make the delivery ethically mandatory. The issue is not whether a [medical intervention] is the fetus' only hope, but whether [it] is in the interest of the fetus.

Good NYT story here.

Making government more effective AND embarrassing the administration

As reported by this Boston Globe expose, the Government Oversight and Reform Committee did little reform and no oversight. In fact, Chairman Tom Davis went so far as to remove the word "oversight" from the committee name.

Now that Henry Waxman is the Chair, according to today's Politico, "already, GOP aides have begun circulating opposition research on him, trying to paint him as an overzealous liberal whose investigations are little more than a partisan scheme."

I'll acknowledge some credit to Tom Davis (any time he deserves it, but so far just this once): "Over the years, [Waxman] worked closely with Rep. Tom Davis when the Virginia Republican was the committee's chairman. And Davis, now the committee's ranking member, has refrained from publicly criticizing Waxman since Democrats took power."

However, Davis does take a snide shot trying to undermine Waxman's catch up on years of neglect. His spokesman David Marin states:

"The overriding question will be: Is this about making government more effective, or is this about embarrassing the administration?"

Do we have to choose? As champions of the self-proclaimed Party of Individual Responsibility, members of the administration should be embarrassed. Or did they lose their individual responsibility when they became Bushies?

The next hearing is on the lies surrounding Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire. According to the uniformed services, they reported the truth about his tragic loss all the way up to the White House. When did the story change? Karl? Rummy?

Washington Post says administration's use of federal employees to manipulate elections is a bad idea

Republican incumbents should release their 2006 schedule, to show if they received this illegal GSA help.

Playing Politics at the GSA: Lurita Doan's willful disregard of the Hatch Act

Tuesday, April 3, 2007; Page A22

LURITA DOAN, the troubled and troubling administrator of the General Services Administration, wants us to "honestly and absolutely" believe that she has no recollection of a meeting she hosted for political appointees with a White House official that had all the feel of a Republican pep rally. There was a PowerPoint presentation on the 2006 elections and talk of using the agency to help GOP candidates in the next election cycle. Yet the Republican fundraiser, who's been in her post for only 10 months, would have us think she forgot.

* * * *

All this -- the PowerPoint presentation, the high-level official from the White House who did the presentation, the go-team cheerleading of Ms. Doan -- leads us to an important question: Who else in the federal government has seen this show? House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) asked that question and more in a letter to Mr. Rove on March 29. He, and we, are eager for a response.

Karl Rove staff and Lurita Doan offer your help to local corrupt Republicans

Karl Rove deputy J. Scott Jennings directed Lurita Doan, the chief of the GSA, and as many as 40 agency officials to help in the re-election of embattled Republicans in the 2006 election. The presentation was made by the White House aide given at the General Services Administration and discussed targeting 20 Democratic congressional candidates in the next election.

Jennings' 28-page presentation included 2006 election results and listed the names of Democratic candidates considered beatable and Republican lawmakers thought to need their help in 2008. The 2008 list includes the following local pols: Thelma Drake (VA-02), Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06) and Tom Davis (VA-11) . The last two slides of the 28 identify Virginia as battleground states in the 2008 Senate race where GSA help will be needed.

WaPo covers politics and the GSA here.

Deepwater is in Deep Caca ...and Cheney's son-in-law?!

Crossposted on DailyKos and Raising Kaine.

WaPo reported today about the Deepwater Revolving door and pay-to-play politics that jeopardizes the Coast Guard, Homeland security and border control. The story mentioned Phillip J. Perry.

The Perry family of McClean, VA has donated generously to the campaigns of crooks like Bob Ney, Randy Forbes, and Conrad Burns, as well as Tom DeLay's ARMPAC, Robert Ehrlich, and Tom Davis. The Perry family donations exceed $50,000.

What did they get for their money? They got to go through the Deepwater Revolving Door. Formerly a lobbyist for Lockheed Martin, J. Phillip Perry, a son-in-law of Dick Cheney, was nominated to be General Counsel to the Department of Homeland Security from June 2005 until he left in February 2007.

After drafting the law that created DHS at OMB, Perry became its GC, a position he could have used to oversee some of the many problems Lockheed had complying with its contract to build boats that float on time and on budget for the Coast Guard. Perry returned to the DC firm of Latham and Watkins in March.

A significant target of the Perry generosity is Tom Davis (R-VA), who oversaw the Government Reform Committee during a period of pay-to-play politics and almost unprecendented scandal when the Committee set records for inactivity. The company escaped accountability for the waste and inefficiency so the money seems like a great investment. Here are the details of the Tom Davis donations from the FEC wbsite.

PERRY, GERALD STEPHEN------10/23/1998---$500.00-THE DUTKO GROUP INC-98034022477
PERRY, GERALD STEPHEN------05/05/1999--$1000.00-THE DUTKO GROUP INC-99034720146
PERRY, ANNE POWERS MRS----04/28/2000--$1000.00-HOMEMAKER-20036461485
PERRY, GERALD STEPHEN MR.-02/09/2001---$500.00-THE DUTKO GROUP INC./EXECUTIVE-21990247559
PERRY, PHILIP JONATHAN MR.-07/16/2001---$250.00-WHITE & CASE /ATTORNEY-22990118540
PERRY, GERALD STEPHEN MR.-03/13/2002---$500.00-THE DUTKO GROUP INC./EXECUTIVE-22990694379
PERRY, GERALD STEPHEN MR.-12/29/2003---$500.00-THE DUTKO GROUP INC./EXECUTIVE-24990181655
PERRY, GERALD STEPHEN MR.-07/15/2005--$1000.00-THE DUTKO GROUP INC./EXECUTIVE-25971136867

Disbar Alberto Gonzales!

How can you tell when Alberto Gonzales is lying?

. His lips are moving.

Alberto Gonzales must be disbarred, not just fired.

HispanicBusiness reported his behavior has "Echoes of Watergate" and is "enormously problematic" on March 12, 2007.

See the report of his lies to Congress on the Attorney General firings at WaPo here. Howard Kurtz on 3/16 is here.

See his lies to Congress on torture on NPR here, at WaPo here and here.

See his lies on the NSA warrantless spying program at Slate here, DemocracyNow here, at TalkLeft here and at TPM Muckraker here.

Contractor Accountability - who could possibly object?

Who is objecting to Contractor Accountability, Whistleblower Protection, and Testimony from Valerie Plame?

The purpose of the Contractor Accountability bill is "to improve Federal contracting and procurement by eliminating fraud and abuse and improving competition in contracting and procurement and by enhancing administration of Federal contracting personnel, and for other purposes."

Coming after the scandal of the contracting out of Walter Reed, which was done so poorly and at a higher cost then the government employees who had been working there for decades, the bill had broad support. Only 73 of 433 members of Congress, all Republicans, voted against the bill. Tom Davis and Eric Cantor voted against contractor accountability.

Tom Davis even voted with 190 Republicans against bringing the bill to the Floor for a vote.

The National Association of Govermnment Contractors is for the bill. They're tired of being used as a "piggy bank" for Congressional campaigns.

The Washington Post is for it. When the Democrats first introduced this in 2000, the Post hosted Paul Light, Vice President, Director, and Douglas Dillon Senior at the Brookings Institution. Light said,

"If we're going to have a contract work force, which we surely do, we ought to know what it looks like. Make it visible, understand it, track its movement, and make sure it is the highest quality for the dollar possible. We are increasingly in the business of buying labor through service contracts, but we continue to treat that labor as if it were nothing more than a stick of furniture. Our contract officers need to get smarter, better, and more agile at understanding the difference between buying toilet paper and procuring professional services."

Davis succeeded in attaching to the bill a provision that would prohibit all government agencies from awarding contracts to any institutions of higher learning that deny military recruitment on their campuses. This amendment split the Democrats and united the Republicans. Under current law, the ban applies only to contracts from the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and a few other agencies.

Davis also voted twice with the Republicans to prevent the Whistleblower Protection Act from coming to the floor here and here. It is obvious that the Walter Reed scandal came to light only because of whistleblowers; considering that Walter Reed personnel responded to the scandal by prohibiting employees and patients from speaking with the press, the need for this critical protection is obvious.

Davis is also "clearly unhappy" that Waxman has scheduled testimony from Valerie Plame on Friday, and Davis is trying to close the hearing.

See his Rubber Stamp voting record here.

Bush Power Grab-Let them Eat Spinach?

Now that global warming is confirmed by a broad scientific consensus that is almost unanimous, and food safety and exposure of imports to terrorism is widely acknowledged, George Bush found a revised secret route to undermine public safety legislation. Congress needs to step up and reassert its authority.

A new Executive Order would strip regulatory agencies of authority to regulate dangerous products unless it can establish "market failure."

The Bush administration ordered agencies to get White House approval before issuing "guidance" on regulatory matters, possibly subjecting such pronouncements to the same comment period and cost-benefit analyses as full-blown regulations. The executive order also requires agencies to document a "market failure" to justify any new regulation and puts a political appointee in each agency to oversee regulatory policies.

Thousands of Americans have died in Iraq - and more allies and civilians and contractors - and the Administration refuses to call it a failure. How many consumers have to die before it will declare a "market failure"?

The compelling testimony of Georgetown Law professor and Director of the Institute For Public Representation, David Vladeck, is here. He points out it applies to drafts, guidelines and policies as well as rules, and to agencies implementing laws passed by Congress that require hazard analysis, not market failure.

More from WaPo:

"There is no question who this panders to," said Rena Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor who is critical of administration regulatory policy.

"It's maybe not surprising that having lost control of the Congress, the president is doing what he can to increase control of the executive branch," [said Peter Strauss, a professor at Columbia University law school].

There is no question of the resounding effect this will have on safety regulation as recognized by papers that cover Federal regulation. In Biotech-rich Thousand Oaks, CA, the paper said the "Power Grab [is] likely to change the country." TomPaine calls it a "chokehold. The Washington Times says the Order will establish Bush's legacy, which according to the Moonies is currently tainted because the Clinton regulations first blocked by Bush as anti-business did eventually go through relatively intact. The Times especially complains about Clinton's environmental protections, designed to prevent increased rates of global warming, and the Times denies the vast weight of climate change evidence.

The changes would be secret, too

In a February 13 hearing before a House Science and Technology subcommittee on oversight, chairman Brad Miller of North Carolina commented that new regulations could "be smothered in the crib by the RPO" without even the possibility of public scrutiny. ... Vladeck told the committee that the new executive order "goes back to the days when OIRA was allowed to conduct a big part of its business in secret."

C'mon, Congress. Eat your Spinach.

Women in Power Luncheon in DC March 6

EMILY’s List is hosting their annual luncheon in DC on March 6. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, and Claire McCaskill will be honoring Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Join Democratic GAIN and take advantage of a special offer of reduced price tickets to this luncheon for DG members from EMILY’s List.

The special reduced rate is only $50 for tickets for this exciting event. If you are able to attend there should be some awesome networking. For more information, please click here or contact Anna Lidman at (207) 773-8703.

Even if you are not in DC then you should check out EMILY’s List. Anyone interested in making a serious career in Democratic politics should make sure they go to a EMILY’s list training, spend some part of their career working for a EMILY’s list candidate, or if you are lucky enough working for EMILY’s List directly.

Challenging the Iraq Resolution as withdrawing support for our troops-Catch 22

Do you have questions for the Republicans on the Iraq War?

Now that our closest allies, the British, have announced they are phasing out their troop presence in Iraq, this war unquestionably belongs to the Bush administration and the Republicans who covered for them. The chief of the cover up is Tom Davis (R-VA), who put the Government Reform Committee on a strict diet of salt peter during his reign from 1998 through 2006. The absurdity of the actions of Davis's committee, whereby subjects of investigations could hire Davis's wife to prepare them for an investigation in which Davis could ask planted questions or prohibit questions altogether, is captured deep in the transcripts for the Committee.

Davis cites the Hurricane Katrina investigation as proof he was on the job. But clearly he was not. He limited the hearing and the questions. The most quoted example of planted questions involves the disaster and Carnival Cruise lines, a Florida company with ties to Presidential brother Jeb Bush, Florida governor. Carnival won a no-bid contract for providing housing for displaced Louisiana natives aboard their ships after Hurricane Katrina in amounts that exceeded the costs for providing a full luxury cruise. The ships remained more than half empty. Davis did not subpeona the company but had a friendly hearing on the no-bid, $236 million contract (including $44 million in expenses). When the VP of Marketing, Terry Thorton, testified how Carnival got the profitable award, Davis asked such planted questions as this one:

"You didn't seek the government contract. The government came to you, basically, with a solicitation."

"That's correct," Thorton replied.

This was not a question. Furthermore, it was not correct. Democrats found emails to prove it.

Back to the present, it is long past time to challenge the President on the Iraq War. Despite Davis's insistence that those who do so are guilty of treason (should they be hanged for it?), demanding that your country produce compelling reasons for sending people to die is patriotic, too.

How has your representative responded to your questions? The challenges to the war allowed by the Republicans are as meaningful as the challenges from Davis's Oversight Committee, and as absurd as this Q&A:

Group Headquarters was alarmed, for there was no telling what people might find out once they were free to ask whatever questions they wanted to. Colonel Cathcart sent Colonel Korn to stop it, and Colonel Korn succeeded with a rule governing the asking of questions. Colonel Korn's rule was a stroke of genius, Colonel Korn explained in his report to Colonel Cathcart. Under Colonel Korn's rule, the only people permitted to ask questions were those who never did. Soon the only people attending were those who never asked questions, and the sessions were discontinued altogether, since Clevinger, the corporal and Colonel Korn agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.

Catch-22

Congress Can Chain the Dogs of War

Fred Barbash has an excellent column in today's WaPo. He thinks the President's interpretation of the Constitution is a little fruity. Barbash exposes Bush’s fondness for cherry picking from the Constitution to support his exclusive War Powers. He quotes Scalia, yes, Scalia:

"Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it."

The Constitution's Article I gives Congress war powers far beyond the power of the purse.

It vests in the House and Senate the authority to "declare war," to "make rules concerning captures on land and water [torture and Habeus Corpus]," to "provide for the common defense [Homeland Security, warrantless wiretapping]," to "raise and support Armies," and to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces [deployment and protective gear]." In addition, the Senate advises and consents on important military appointments, which is why Lt. Gen. David Petraeus was on Capitol Hill last week for confirmation as the general in command of U.S. forces in Iraq.

War is a shared responsibility. The records of the 1787 convention at which the Constitution was drafted unquestionably demonstrate that. An early version of Article I, for example, gave Congress the power to "make war."

The delegates changed the wording to "declare war," not to remove Congress from the process but to leave the commander in chief the "power to repel sudden attacks," as James Madison put it.

"The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war," agreed Roger Sherman. In the eyes of some delegates, this limited authority was safe in the hands of a president because "no executive would ever make war but when the nation will support it," said delegate Pierce Butler.

100 Hours Update from Congress.org

100 HOURS OF LEGISLATION

First 100 Hours

Congress.org is an extensive resource of Federal and state legislation and legislators. The site monitors votes and sends weekly updates telling you what votes are upcoming and how your representative voted on previous bills. It provides links to send your opinion. Here is the latest newsletter for this week, the second newsletter in Congress's First 100 hours.

The new Democratic House leadership intends to spend the first "100 hours" of the legislative session to vote on legislation the Democrats believe are important to the voters. Weigh in with your views on these issues and we will tabulate the results daily.

H.R. 5 - REDUCING STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES
Proposal: Cut subsidies to student loan providers to reduce interest rates by 50%.
Your Vote Count: Congress can count on me to Support the Bill -- Oppose the Bill

H.R. 6 - CUT SUBSIDIES TO OIL COMPANIES TO FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
Proposal: Reduce or rollback tax breaks for oil companies to fund renewable energy projects.
Your Vote Count: Congress can count on me to Support the Bill -- Oppose the Bill

LOWER MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES
Proposal: Repeal laws that prevent the government from negotiating discount drug purchases from drug companies.
Your Vote Count: 11,924 messages so far - Congress can count on me to
SUPPORT THE BILL (84%) -- OPPOSE THE BILL (16%)

100 HOUR SCORECARD

FUND STEM CELL RESEARCH Passed 253-174 VOTE RESULTS House approves funding for stem cell research.
Your Vote Count: 13,126 messages - SUPPORTED (54%) -- OPPOSED (46%)

PAY AS YOU GO RULES Passed 232-200 VOTE RESULTS House requires spending cuts or tax hikes to offset any new spending or tax cuts.
Your Vote Count: 9785 messages - SUPPORTED (74%) -- OPPOSED (26%)

ETHICS OF CONGRESS Passed 232-200 VOTE RESULTS House bans gifts from lobbyists and requires full disclosure of earmarks.
Your Vote Count: 19,112 messages - SUPPORTED (92%) -- OPPOSED (8%)

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE Passed 315-116 VOTE RESULTS House votes to increase it to $7.25 an hour.
Your Vote Count: 18,112 messages - SUPPORTED (65%) -- OPPOSED (35%)

9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Passed 299-128 VOTE RESULTS House approves implementing the 9/11 Commission security proposals.
Your Vote Count: 10,037 messages - SUPPORTED (84%) -- OPPOSED (16%)

The Congress.org Weekly Update Editors