Bloodless Coup

I never held out much hope that a Repug controled committee headed by Pat Roberts would do anything on this.

Help us Arlen Specter - you're our only hope.

And if that's not a scary thought ...

Oh, but there's scandal floating about him now, haven't you heard? One of his staffers is married to a lobbyist. Call me paranoid, but it sounds so, so, well, so Rovian.

Wait - there are staffers who aren't married to (or parents of) lobbyists? Really?

Yeah yeah yeah I know - I'm a cynic.

It is kind of hard to find someone who is completely unconnected in DC. Fancy that.

Next thing you know there's going to be a Catholic pope.

But of course as much as I'm making light of thise (or just noting general depression at it being the norm) some of these things are really really bad - remember that business with Rep. Shuster? Anyone think the Specter thing is at that level?

No, the stuff I read so far looked pretty contrived. Not like Shuster and diverting a major interstates highway into a two lane local raod through a town in your district.

Just got back from a panel discussion on this with Specter - the man is not happy with the president about this program...Actually, even the ex-bush toadies on the panel weren't glowingly defensive...guess that's why they are ex toadies.

Anyway, I digress. Nothing new from the Senator, but I expect hearing on that committee to go forth. Although, after hearing from these people my thoughts are that if anything is done, the congress will just approve the wiretapping. They seemed to be more concerned that it is "illegal" not so much that it is happening.

More on Specter and some of our Constitution-loving Senator via Atrios.

i wouldn't at all be surprised to see congress just rubberstamp the power the president requests, which is part of why i'm so amazed he hasn't just asked. indeed, it's this inflexibility that disturbs me most. more than anything else, it suggests true contempt for the system in all its glory.

most constitutional crises end with whimpers rather than bangs. remember in marbury, the court basically said, we _could_ stop you if we wanted to, but we don't want to this time. it was a thing of beauty: establish your autonymous prerogative as a matter of precedent in a system steeped in commonlaw, than exercise that prerogative to do the least antagonistic thing possible under the circumstances. it might have averted the early dissolution of tripartite government and it certainly defused a potentially disastrous constitutional crisis.

i'm sure the Court thought it was doing the same thing in Bush v. Gore. however objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. opinions vary. something like that.

to return to the point, if Congress just steps up, or the Prez just steps off and lets them work their arm-twisted magic, he'll get what he wants and the dems will be shit out of rhetoric. for all the supposedly cagey political maneuvering i hear rove's capable of, best i can tell he and the rest are just a bunch of bullies. there's no finesse, and nothing even vaguely resembling a long view, anywhere in the white house.

Well I guess it's a hopeful sign that the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is personally annoyed that the President of the United States is repeatedly breaking the law and shows every sign of continuing to do that. But if he's not willing to do anything about it - so what?

I guess the Law & Order party has officially become the Order (follow 'em or else!) party - even among the "moderates" (all 4 of them).

UPDATE: More on Specter, for Armand.