The difference between 1983 and 2007

July 25, 2007

At the end of the AP article on today’s House Judiciary Committee vote on contempt charges, the piece mentions this:

The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt citation was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

Lavelle was the chief of the EPA’s hazardous waste program in the Reagan administration. The White House withheld documents in the “Sewergate” scandal about hazardous waste enforcement — Reagan’s EPA didn’t believe in it — and Lavelle resisted subpoenas.

An outraged House approved a contempt citation unanimously.

Today, not a single Republican on the House Judiciary Committee was willing to endorse a similar measure. Not one.

In other words, every member of the House GOP in 1983 was willing to take a stand against an official in the administration of Ronald Reagan, the Patron Saint of the Party, but in 2007, the Republican caucus is inclined to stand with Bush.

BooMan said it reflects “an appalling erosion of principle.” I think that’s true, but I’d add that it might also suggest an erosion of institutional pride. Lawmakers historically resisted a co-equal branch trying to get away with something at their expense. The current cast of far-right characters believe Bush is part of their “team,” and if he wants to undermine the powers of the legislative branch, they ought to let him.

It’s a shame, isn’t it?

More than a shame, it’s a personality disorder.

  • Yes it is a shame but the modern Republican party is loyal first to the Party, then to Corporate America, and last to the Constitution. They really are remarkably like the Bolsheviks just before and during the Russian Revolution: disciplined, dogmatically fanatic, relentlessly partisan and amoral. There are no Republican politicians that i can see in this current bunch with the principles or integrity of those who confronted Nixon and told him he would be impeached and that they would vote against him. Those Republicans are now in museums or graves. How else could these people sit by and watch their President attempt to turn the office into a dictatorship? Don’t they have sense enough to realize the terrible precedent they are allowing to develop? Someday a hated Democrat will become President and turn the tables on them. Do they want that? Mystifying.

  • “It’s a shame, isn’t it?”

    to the extent that it insures republicans will be voted out of office it 2008, no, it’s not a shame………

  • “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” I wonder if any of the current Congressional Republicans even know who uttered these words, let alone in regard to the issue it related?

    Mine is the Party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt and Eisenhower, but these three honorable men would be repulsed by this current crop of Congressional Republican’s who find themselves circling their wagons around a WH that has proven to me, and the fellow Americans I hang out with, its recklessness with our Constitutional heritage. I wish to remind my fellow Congressional brethern that the election cycle is the ultimate weathervane of American sentiment.

    At this juncture, their strategy of obstruction may work to stall the legitimate oversight function of their institution, but in the long run, it will also lead to their incumbancy termination come ’08, ’10 and ’12.

    If the Çongressional Republicans display more loyalty to this WH incumbant than our Constitutional principles, as they have done so so far, they run the risk of not being able to be elected dog catcher in the most rural of towns here in the good ol’WSofA for the forseeable future. -Kevo

  • They still believe that they will win the presidency next year and take back congress. They are in a serious state of denial.

  • You say erosion of principle, I say it wasn’t just Democratic officials all of those illegal surveillance programs were digging up dirt on. Rove has to have blackmail material on just about every elected official in the Republican party by now, they can’t afford to turn on him.

  • Yes to an erosion of principle and pride.

    But also:

    This is true for the country in general.
    I see it evidenced in people’s behavior every single day.

    We are fast becoming a nation that thinks the law applies only to the other fellow.

    I created a fictitious sign that captures my meaning and the behavior I see daily:
    ~~~~~~~~~
    NO BIKES
    NO DOGS
    NO SKATEBOARDING
    ALLOWED ON THE TRACK
    (except for your dog, your skateboard, and your bike)
    ~~~~~~~~~
    A quality of sign that fits a particular quality of people…

    So in a sense Gonzales is the perfect Attorney General for modern Americans, and Bush the perfect President.

  • Don’t they have sense enough to realize the terrible precedent they are allowing to develop? Someday a hated Democrat will become President and turn the tables on them. Do they want that? Mystifying.

    Mystifying — or frightening

    If one party takes steps to change profoundly and permanently the organic law of a country in a way that could redound to their disadvantage upon their inevitable return to opposition (Pres. Hilary, anyone?) then it’s reasonable to at least consider the possibility that they don’t intend to ever return to opposition again.

    Is Cheney content to see his Incredible Metastatizing Executive revert to the Democrats, upon their eventually regaining the White House?

    No sane man whittles a switch and hands it to another man to beat him with.

    So either there’s no switch — these expanded powers don’t exist, or the recent actions of the executive actually restricts — or there’s no intention to hand the switch to another man — or the man’s not sane.

    Too bad the fate of the Republic depends on the third choice being the right one.

  • Those Republicans in Congress in 1983 were a whole different breed than the GOP members of Congress. Not necessarily more “courageous” of course but definitely not addicted to the Kool Aid.

  • It is indeed a shame – a shame upon us all, those whose principles have been co-opted, those that agree That it’s okay, and the rest of us for allowing it to continue.

    I’ve always thought that no ne should be allowed to run for governmental office twice. Perhaps make terms six years, but that’s it. Add to that publicly funded campaigns and we would go a long way in curing what ails the politics in this country.

    I’m not letting the Democrats off the hook on the “principles” issue. Perhaps it’s a matter of degrees, but I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle on this one. Look at all the people from both parties that will eventually fight reform measures. The simple answer is probably the toxic cocktail of money and the hunger for power.

    In fact, I think what is going on in politics reflects what is going on in society in general.

    We’re losing our soul, we’re losing our planet, and the consequences are dire.

    What’s next?

  • It’s votes like that which lead me to call the GOP a personality cult, or a Leninist revolutionary organization.

    Have the GOP committee members no pride at all? Miers should have at least appeared before the committee to assert executive privilege. To do anything else is just an insult to the process, and specifically to the members of the committee.

    Even if you buy the administration’s theory of privilege, she was in contempt of a valid Congressional subpoena. They have a right to make her appear. She doesn’t even WORK for El Presidente anymore; she’s a private citizen.

    I guess in the 21-st Century GOP, ‘Republican’ means never being unwilling to have the President and his underlings treat you like dirt. They really do take an oath to the President and not to the Constitution.

  • Ba ba Repubs, how do you vote?
    Yes sir yes sir all those noes.
    Help for the W, help for the ‘Fonz,
    And help for old Dick Cheney who lives down the lane…

  • I agree with the previous commentaries that the current batch of Republican politicians now in office, for the most part, consider loyalty to the party and Bush as their highest priority, and have a callous disregard for upholding Constitutionally mandated laws and oversight provisions, to the detriment of the country’s citizens. They are setting a dangerous precedent, unless checked, that would undermine our cherished democracy. Shame on them!!

    Let’s hope that the overwhelming majority of our fellow Americans will join us in voting these callous politicians out of office and restore true democracy to our shores in the coming 2008 elections!!

  • Re: Davis X. Machina @ #8

    If one party takes steps to change profoundly and permanently the organic law of a country in a way that could redound to their disadvantage upon their inevitable return to opposition (Pres. Hilary, anyone?) then it’s reasonable to at least consider the possibility that they don’t intend to ever return to opposition again.

    You make an excellent point (although, I will not be casting a vote for Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who does not issue an official condemnation of the Loyal Bushie Brownshi(r)t Cabal and affects public advocacy for impeachment — can you say “Dennis Kucinich”?). The ReThugs are behaving as if they already know that Dear Leader’s not going to give up the keys to the kingdom. Perhaps they know something we don’t — what, with all of that talk from the NeoCon 9/11 Hit Squad, et. al. about the need for another mass-terrorism attack upon the American People & Psyche. Couple that with Georgie’s unwillingness to let the co-equal branch of Congress see his so-called plans for “ensuring constitutional government” – it is disconcerting to say the least.

    P.S. It struck me yesterday, going over Presidential Directive 51, that in that statement “The President shall lead all activities for ensuring constitutional government.” — the words “constitutional” and “government” are not capitalized. I think there is some significance to that. When referring to the U.S. Constitution, isn’t it proper to capitalize “constitution” and in the Constitution, “Government” is always capitalized.

  • Dick Cheney was a Representative at the time of the contempt vote. Does anyone know if he voted or not?

  • It could also reflect an appalling accretion of capital. Congressmen, regardless of stripe, are much less relective of the general populace these days, their downhome posturing, notwithstanding.

  • Why in the world would you be surprised?

    For all the liberal bloggers who are pointing out that this Republican Senator SAYS he’s against the war plan and that Republican Congressman SAYS he’s against the budget, just how many have backed their “voices” with their “votes”?

    Precious few. Most are still parroting the Administration lines word-for-word. I really don’t know if they’re delusional or Cheney has a whole boat-load of comprimising pictures.

  • I suppose I could call it a shame – just as soon as I get past bewildered astonishment. It’s one thing for the GOP to march lockstep in support of Mr 25%. He is, after all, their leader and they have become a party of personality centric allegiances. Their guy can do no wrong. If he breaks a law, the fault is always with the law – never with the person.

    But for them to march lockstep in support of Gonzo is just beyond comprehension. Here’s the most important law enforcement official in the country, and in the rare instances when he can remember anything at all, he refuses to talk about it – even though compelled by a legal subpoena.

    Yesterday at TPM, David Kurtz said, “…Alberto Gonzales has about as much credibility left as professional cycling…” This is wildly off the mark. It’s like comparing speeding with vehicular homicide. A better analogy would be to compare Gonzo’s credibility to Micheal Vick’s SPCA membership.

  • Perhaps few republicans realized how blatantly corrupt and unprincipled their elected leaders would show themselves to be. These elected officials support ignoring the rule of law for party reasons to the point of uniting against oversight and accountability.
    It seems to me that over the years I have seen a distinct difference in elected republicans. Today republicans seem to be lacking integrity. It’s okay to lie if no law is being broken. You must prove guilt before investigation.
    The principles apply to both democrat and republican. If it were a Clinton WH previous counsel refusing to answer a subpoena the outrage from republicans would hurt the eardrums.
    Republicans demonstrate why they deserve to be called “The Party of Hypocrisy” I hope un elected members of the POH regain their principles and force elected republicans to develop some integrity. All of this corruption and abuse of power should matter to them. Until it does they have no reason to be in government.

  • Tillman fan asks: Dick Cheney was a Representative at the time of the contempt vote. Does anyone know if he voted or not?

    He might well have. But Dick Cheney also said something about Saddam not being worth the lives of American soldiers too.

    Republicans don’t have real good memories. The Kool Aid takes care of that.

  • Unfortunately, my sister, who is a republican just keeps repeating over and over “They all do it…they all do it”, and really doesn’t want to hear about it. Her husband and their friends are the same. They are republican because of abortion stands only. Unless it’s a republican victory on some issue they won’t discuss any of it and just ignore it all. Then they vote republican again. It’s “selective politics”. Find one issue you agree with the party on and use that as the reason to vote for them. Ignore everything else. Don’t even discuss it. Just say “they all do it” to rationalize it all away. I’m talking a lot of republicans here and I don’t understand how they justify being so narrow minded and selective. Just saying…trying to understand.

  • Atrios is pointing out that Reagan was relatively unpopular at the time, aroud 40% favorable.

    Of course, Bush would do anything for 40% approval right now.

  • bjobotts, i think that is not only a common experience, but is what the Repubs have as a goal. it serves them well for two reasons.

    First, it fits their substantive goals – if everyone thinks all politicians and all government is bad, no one will come to the rescue when Grover tries to drown it in the bathtub.

    Second, it serves their political goal. they already have the media well trained to make false equivilences, like in the Abramoff scandal where he funneled money to about 20 Rethugs and 1 Dem, and yet that one was enough for the R’s and some in the media to call it a “bipartisan scandal.” if they can get the public to also say “a pox on both your houses” it masks a multitude of Republican’t sins by turning lying about the cause of a deadly and costly war into nothing more serious than Bill Clinton lying about a little oral sex on the side.

    What i find sad is that more and more our side seems to be helping the R’s sell the “they all do it” line by arguing, here and elsewhere, that Nader was right about there not being a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, or agreeing with Kucinich that the Democrats have failed (despite having had only 6 months to try and undo 6 years of corruption). those fair-weather “progressives” help validate your ostrich-like Republican friends’ beliefs and the false “balance” of the media by equating the Dems’ inability to use essentially a tied Senate to muster effective resistance (overnight, no less) to a Republican president, judiciary, and media with the catastrophic acts of the Republican leadership itself. your post shows the high costs of those on the left buying into the Republican strategy.

  • Ever notice when Democrats pass stuff like this its ‘stading up for principle’ of course when during clinton years on several occasions-every dem-including the blue dogs voted against a gop measure ‘it was standing up for pirinciple’ The reality is when the gopers don’t rollover and try to kiss the dems asses its partisanship.

  • The real news article should READ “Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee passed a partisan resolution on a pary line vote” If one gop member had voted for this it would be called a BIPARTISAN measure

  • Bush has no political heir so he and co-president Cheney are free to do the things that define principle for them, restoring the Imperial Presidency and fighting Democrats. But the rest of the Republicans have futures so they need to suppress any more controversy around this president even as they know he’s down to Nixonian popularity. When 2008 gets here it will be a different world and they will sense the wind direction and act accordingly. If they end up the minority party, they’ll be free to return to their Clinton era shinnanigans

    • Comments are closed.