Here’s a random thought I’ve been mulling over: do congressional [tag]Republicans[/tag] agree with the White House about oversight authority?
Obviously, as a practical matter, we know that the congressional GOP, while in the majority, chose not to exercise its powers of administrative [tag]oversight[/tag].
[tag]Bush[/tag]’s instincts were dangerously reinforced by the Republican-controlled Congress, which viewed itself less as an independent branch of government than as a junior partner to the White House in the American equivalent of a parliamentary system.
The Republican majority so completely abdicated its responsibilities to conduct oversight on the executive branch that its governing motto might have been “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Key House and Senate committees sometimes went months without oversight hearings on Iraq. Neither chamber managed more than a glancing review of the increased police powers the administration acquired for the war on terror. Congress barely noted the collapse in care for many veterans at Walter Reed, and it almost completely avoided issues uncomfortable for Bush, such as global warming and declining access to health insurance.
But the prosecutor-purge scandal presents a far different question for Republicans in Congress. Whether lawmakers choose to use the power or not, does the legislative branch’s oversight authority over the White House exist?
Yesterday we talked at length about the Bush gang’s opinion on the matter — Tony Snow said, “The legislative branch has no oversight responsibility over the [tag]White House[/tag]” — but now would be an interesting time to see whether the president’s allies are willing to go along with such an assertion. I don’t think they will.
In principle, they shouldn’t. Congress approves the White House’s budget, Congress has the power to impeach the president, and no White House has ever declared itself free of oversight authority. Except, given what we heard yesterday, if subpoenas start flying, this is exactly what we’re going to hear from the Bush gang.
It poses a unique challenge to those who’ve carried the president’s water for six years. It’s one thing to argue that Congress, in this case, shouldn’t apply oversight to the White House. It’s something else entirely for members of Congress to officially declare themselves impotent.
For that matter, it would also set a precedent: Republicans may want to, but they don’t get to pick and choose which presidents are subject to accountability. If Congress has oversight responsibility over this White House, it has oversight responsibility over every White House, regardless of party affiliation. Is the congressional GOP really prepared to argue that there’s nothing lawmakers can ever do to check any White House’s power?
I kind of doubt it. Partisan hacks in the halls of Congress can spin, lie, and change the subject on Bush’s behalf, but I find it very hard to believe most Republican lawmakers would go along with this new White House talking point. There’s still some institutional pride on Capitol Hill.
In the coming weeks, this may matter quite a bit. The initial administration argument was that no one, at any level, did anything wrong. Soon after, the argument was that some officials may have erred, but they’re in the Justice Department. Soon after that, the argument was that some White House aides may have been involved, but they didn’t do anything “improper.” As of yesterday, the new White House argument is, “It doesn’t matter anyway, because Congress can’t touch us, even if it wants to.”
If they stick to that line, and it becomes the key to the White House’s defense, the Bush gang will probably have pushed their luck too far. What happens when reporters start asking Republicans, “So, senator, do you agree that the legislative branch has no oversight responsibility over the White House?”
It’s an argument that may very well drive away the president’s most important allies — his buddies in Congress.