Below is very credible
documentation to show that legitimate debate over important issues in
Washington, a real system of checks and balances, and true democracy as
we know it are all in very serious danger right now!
There are four very alarming articles below. They are titled in
order: "Larger Majorities and the Itch to Stretch G.O.P. Muscles,"
"Senate Leader Frist Seeks to Change Filibuster Rules," "GOP Approves
New Party Rules in Light of DeLay," and "Bush Seeks to Rule The
What is clearly happening is that the majority faction of the
Republican Party is trying very hard to eliminate any opposition to
their agenda from the rest of the Republican Party who do not agree
with them and from the Democratic Party!
This is an outright attempt by an overall minority faction of the
country to gain full control over the entire country. It is this
type of attitude and these kind of dirty and underhanded tactics that
are causing the bitter partisanship and division in this country
There will be no light at the end of the tunnel to the division in this
country if this attempted hijacking of the country is not
stopped. If this continues, then Bush and the Neoconservative
Republican leaders will turn this country into a one party state with
no minority rights. Just look at all that they have already done
so quickly after the election which is credibly and clearly documented
To deal with this, we need to be concerned about the future direction
and message of the Democratic Party, we always need to be aware of what
Bush and his Neoconservative inner circle of Washington leaders are
doing, and we must always be ready to speak out loudly against their
attempts to change the rules in Washington and force their extreme
agenda on the entire country!
They cannot be allowed to get away with that type of behavior without a
legitimate debate of the issues, without a real system of checks and
balances in place, and without their being willing to compromise in
good faith with the many people of both parties who disagree with them
and their agenda!
I will be very glad to help out in dealing with things like this for
any person, group, or organization who would like my help on a regular
basis. I am currently available to do any kind of contract and/or
full time work in the areas of professional writing, research, debate,
and political analysis.
Please contact me directly if I can be of help to you or to your
organization. I cannot relocate to do this work but I can work
for anyone anywhere in the country on my computer, I am available by
telephone at any arranged time, I am able to travel at anytime, and I
can do any kind of work in the Dallas, Texas area.
Other writing samples of mine are available upon request and many of my
articles and media interviews are available on-line by just entering my
name "Mitch Dworkin" in the Google search on your computer. I was
a media spokesperson for the nationwide Republicans for Kerry
grassroots organization during the election.
Please feel free to forward this message on to people who you know and
to other groups that you are on. I am very serious about wanting
to protect our democracy and helping to make sure that the
Neoconservatives and extreme right wing do not seize control of our
great country with their extreme agenda!
I am very concerned about what is happening now and I would like to be
of as much help as I can in preserving our democracy!
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Master of Education
Former Campaign Manager, Gary R. Page for Congress, Texas Congressional
Updated: 02:11 PM EST
Larger Majorities and the
Itch to Stretch G.O.P. Muscles
By CARL HULSE, The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - House Republicans knew that their post-election
rush to protect their majority leader, Tom DeLay, from losing his post
in the event of a criminal indictment would prompt charges of hypocrisy
and ethical backsliding. With the numbers on their side, they plunged
In fact, the decision to shield Mr. DeLay from an investigation in his
home state, Texas, is the most striking manifestation of a new boldness
of Republicans in Congress, who enhanced their majorities in the
The aggressiveness is not just in the House. Senate Republicans are
threatening to deploy a potentially explosive procedural tactic to
prevent Democrats from filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees.
On Wednesday, seven newly elected Republican senators helped give their
majority leader, Bill Frist, broad new power to dole out committee
assignments, a move that could help him keep independent-minded
senators in line on critical issues and punish those who stray.
As the lame-duck session inched along, Republicans in the House and
Senate backed a stand-alone increase in the federal debt limit - an
uncomfortable bit of business that lawmakers usually try to obscure
because it draws attention to their inability to control the deficit.
Before the election, Republicans were nervous even talking about a
debt-limit increase, let alone bringing an independent one to the floor.
And the leadership is not shy about pushing a highly ambitious agenda
that includes major revisions in Social Security and the tax code.
"Social Security and tax reform are both on the agenda for the 109th
Congress, and we plan to send both bills to the president before we
adjourn two years from now," Mr. DeLay says in remarks prepared for
delivery on Friday to the Council for National Policy. "And we're just
getting warmed up."
Together, the actions make it clear that Congressional Republicans,
like their ally President Bush, interpret the Nov. 2 results as giving
them the clear go-ahead, and they are more than happy to seize the
moment. The actions preview what has emerged as a new dynamic on
"This was a historic strengthening," said Senator George Allen, the
Virginian who led the campaign effort that gave the slim Republican
majority more breathing room with a gain of four seats. "We know what
we want to do and now we have the ability to do it. And I think we
For all the activity, Republicans have taken care not to gloat publicly
or strut through the halls of Congress. They talk regularly about their
willingness to work with Democrats who want to help them push major
"Republicans aren't likely to accomplish much alone," Senator Mitch
McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said Thursday. "The
same is true for our Democratic colleagues."
Perhaps Mr. McConnell and his colleagues are mindful of the
consequences of appearing too confident.
"House leaders in particular are vulnerable to becoming drunk with
power, because it is an institution in which even with a bare majority,
you can pretty much do what you want," Ross K. Baker, a political
scientist at Rutgers University, said. "Democrats did the same thing.
They press their advantage to the point where it looks like a naked
Handed majorities in Congress, Republicans have pressed too hard in the
past. After sweeping victories in 1980, the Republicans pushed through
tax cuts, a military buildup and other Ronald Reagan programs, only to
lose control of the Senate in 1986. After taking control of the House
in 1994, Republicans rallied behind Newt Gingrich's agenda and
impeached President Bill Clinton. They lost seats in 1998, though they
remain in power.
Democrats and veteran Congress watchers view the early maneuvering in
the House and Senate as a sign that Republicans are more than ready to
go it alone, if necessary.
"This is all about smash-mouth politics," Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at
the Brookings Institution, said. "They have no intention of changing
course in the House, and Frist is going to try to move some of the ways
of doing business in the House to the Senate. The idea here is that we
won, they lost."
That approach has risks. The decision to change party rules for Mr.
DeLay could let House Republicans be viewed in the same light as the
Democrats they drove from power in the 90's by casting them as sleazy.
Recalling Republican finger-pointing at Democratic scandals in the
1980's and 90's, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2
Democrat in the House, said, "It is indeed ironic that that same
Republican leadership is now proposing they allow indicted leaders to
continue as their leaders."
If Senate Republicans fail to follow through on their threat to break
any filibusters mounted by Democrats against new judicial choices, they
could end up looking weak. And Democrats are issuing their own threats,
promising to retaliate by bringing Senate business to a grinding halt
should Republicans try to rule the filibusters unconstitutional through
a simple majority vote.
"They'd better be very, very careful what they do," Senator Harry Reid
of Nevada, the new Democratic leader, said. "I think they would be
making a huge mistake to try to mess with the rules that are standing
now in the Senate. I think they are crying wolf far too much."
The Senate Republican leadership also took out insurance this week to
make certain that its new 55-to-45 majority remains solid. In a
surprise, Senate Republicans voted to give the majority leader power to
fill some vacancies on the most important committees like
Appropriations, Finance and Armed Services, seats now filled through
seniority. The approach gives Dr. Frist new leverage to enforce party
loyalty, and it was backed by some newly elected senators, six of them
from the House.
Republicans say they do not believe they are going too far or too fast
with their initial moves but are simply taking advantage of an election
that clearly turned in their favor.
"It is not hubris," Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi,
said. "I think it is excitement and enthusiasm about the
But as Mr. Gingrich learned before being ousted as speaker, sometimes
excessive enthusiasm can get you into trouble.
11-19-04 14:32 EST
Senate Leader Frist Seeks
to Change Filibuster Rules
By David Brody
November 16, 2004
CBN.com â€“ WASHINGTON -- The
question of liberal, activist judges was a key issue in this year's
presidential campaign. Now CBN News has learned that Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has decided to change the Senate rules to stop
the Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.
Frist has several options to help the President's judicial nominees.
The Senate has not been a kind place to them, with Democrats blocking
or filibustering 10 of the president's picks. In other words, they have
never gotten out of committee for a vote on the Senate floor. That has
never happened before in the history of the Senate. Senator John Cornyn
(R-TX) is a member of the Judiciary Committee. He said, "Of the 10 that
were filibustered last year, all 10 of them could have been confirmed
if they had just been allowed to come to a majority vote on the Senate
Democrats say some of the nominees are simply too conservative. Under
Senate rules as they stand now, Republicans need 60 votes to stop a
Democratic filibuster. But Frist doesn't have 60 Republicans, so he is
looking at some options.
Sources tell CBN News that Sen. Frist will first go to the Democrats
and try to work with them on legislation to change the filibuster rule.
One bill under consideration would make it so that it only takes 51
votes to stop a filibuster. If that does not work, then Sen. Frist may
try to change the filibuster rule when the new Senate session begins in
January. Frist only needs 51 votes to change the filibuster rule.
Another strategy is the "nuclear option." Under this plan, Sen. Frist
appeals to the President of the Senate, who would be Vice President
Dick Cheney, and claims that filibusters against judicial nominees are
unconstitutional. The chair would then rule in the Republicans favor.
Democrats would object, but Republicans would be able to override the
objection with a simple majority of 51 votes.
The problem for Sen. Frist and the Republicans is that if they decide
to try to change Senate rules, Democrats will most likely have a fit.
The way the Senate is set up, they could effectively shut down business
in the Senate, and that means blocking President Bush's domestic agenda.
But a senior Senate aide tells CBN News that Sen. Frist has decided
that despite the opposition he will likely encounter from Democrats, he
simply cannot tolerate the filibustering anymore, and so he will
definitely do something to stop it. It is just that the exact option
has not been chosen yet.
Mark Agrast with the liberal Center for American Progress says changing
filibuster rules is not a good idea.
Agrast said, "It could be exceedingly damaging to the institution to
say majority vote rules in all circumstances in all times, to
essentially eliminate super majorities. I think when people think about
this carefully, they will approach with great caution any of these
But after a couple years of what the GOP is calling Democratic
obstructionism, Sen. Frist seems to be out of patience.
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said, "Senator Frist is probably
operating from a point of frustration and tremendous patience which
some of us would not have, with his Democratic colleagues."
The GOP may be in a pretty good position to make the change. With a
banner election night that brought with it a 55-vote majority and a
defeated Democrat minority leader Tom Daschle, who was a key leader in
blocking President Bush's judicial nominees, Republicans hope the
Democrats may be ready to bargain.
Sen. Cornyn said, "I think that's going to change the whole landscape
here, and make it much more likely that we'll be able to resolve this
in a way that I think will be in the best interests of the American
Updated: 03:08 PM EST
GOP Approves New Party
Rules in Light of DeLay
By LARRY MARGASAK, AP
House Republicans decided a committee would review any felony
indictment of a party leader. The new rule would protect leader Tom
DeLay if he is indicted on political corruption charges in Texas.
Â· Talk About
It: Post | Chat
WASHINGTON (Nov. 17) - House
Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday that could allow
Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership post if he is
indicted by a Texas grand jury on state political corruption charges.
By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition,
the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of
several dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party
leader and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.
The current party rule in this area requires House Republican leaders
and the heads of the various committees to relinquish their positions
if indicted for a crime that could bring a prison term of at least two
years. It makes no distinction between a federal and state indictment.
Three of DeLay's political associates already have been indicted by
that Texas grand jury.
Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, said that under the change embraced
Wednesday, the House Republican Steering Committee would have 30
legislative days to review a felony indictment and recommend to all
House Republicans whether a lawmaker who is charged could remain as a
committee chairman or leader.
There is no indication that DeLay, a 57-year-old Texan, will be
indicted in connection with a Travis County, Texas, campaign finance
investigation. But the majority leader has called the probe a partisan
attack on him.
Bonilla said there was no vote count taken in the closed meeting but
said the proposal passed overwhelmingly.
''This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district
attorney who may want to indict'' party leaders and make a name for
himself, Bonilla said.
Lawmakers said that DeLay did not publicly push for the change and did
not participate in the closed-door debate which lasted several hours.
Bonilla said the leader would not have to step aside while fellow party
members considered whether an indictment was frivolous.
The grand jury is probing alleged irregularities in 2002 state
legislative races. Republican victories in those contests enabled DeLay
ultimately to win support for a congressional redistricting plan that
resulted in the GOP's gain of five House seats in Texas in this month's
House Democrats have a step-aside provision that applies to both
federal and state proceedings similar to the current Republican rule,
and their leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, was highly critical
of the GOP proposal.
''If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again
that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If
Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a
top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their
arrogance is astonishing,'' Pelosi said.
In September, the grand jury indicted three political operatives
associated with DeLay and eight companies, alleging campaign finance
violations related to corporate money spent in the 2002 legislative
races. The corporate donations were made to Texans for a Republican
Majority, a political action committee created with help from DeLay.
DeLay said he was not questioned or subpoenaed as part of the
investigation, led by retiring prosecutor Ronnie Earle.
The majority leader said after the indictments, ''This has been a
dragged-out 500-day investigation, and you do the political math. This
is no different than other kinds of partisan attacks that have been
leveled against me that are dropped after elections.''
In October, the House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for appearing to
link political donations to a legislative favor and improperly
persuading U.S. aviation authorities to intervene in the Texas
Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report.
AP-NY-11-17-04 14:48 EST
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.
Bush Seeks to Rule The
Aim at White House Control
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 22, 2004; Page A04
President Bush has ousted Saddam Hussein, toppled the Taliban and
defeated the Democrats, but last week he took aim at a more enduring
foe: the federal bureaucracy.
In a flurry of actions in recent days, he and his top lieutenants have
taken steps to quell dissent at two fractious agencies -- the CIA and
the State Department -- and to increase White House control over
others, including the Justice and Education departments.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, a trusted aide, will take
over a State Department often seen at odds with the White House and
Pentagon. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais -- AP)
The White House moves, and
similar changes anticipated at other departments, are likely to quiet
some of the already infrequent dissent that has leaked from agencies
during Bush's first term. They may also put a more conservative stamp
on the bureaucracy's administration of the laws and making of rules on
everything from the environment to business to health care.
But political scientists and others who follow the Cabinet agencies say
the Bush efforts, like those of several other presidents, are unlikely
to cause fundamental changes in how the federal government is run.
James Pfiffner, a specialist in presidential personnel at George Mason
University, said Bush's efforts are closest to those of Richard M.
Nixon's after his 1972 reelection, when he installed eight new Cabinet
members and several White House officials at sub-Cabinet positions. "It
was seen as heavy-handed," Pfiffner said, and created an us-vs.-them
tension between political appointees and civil servants. "They didn't
get the kind of inside, deep-down control that they wanted."
Still, past failures to rein in the federal bureaucracy have not
deterred the Bush administration, which even before the recent moves
had been unusually successful at enforcing control over the Cabinet
Last Monday at the CIA, new Director Porter J. Goss issued a memo
outlining the "rules of the road" for the agency. "We support the
administration and its policies in our work," he wrote. "As agency
employees we do not identify with, support, or champion opposition to
the administration or its policies." At least three top CIA officials
have resigned, and Goss has brought in loyalists from outside the
On Tuesday, Bush named trusted aide Condoleezza Rice to be secretary of
state, replacing Colin L. Powell, who frequently and publicly sided
with the department's staff against the White House. Administration
officials are talking about several other White House aides joining
Rice at State, and about several top-level Foreign Service officers
being removed from prominent positions.
The Rice announcement followed by six days Bush's announcement that he
would nominate another White House aide, Alberto R. Gonzales, to be
attorney general -- succeeding John D. Ashcroft, with whom Gonzales and
others at the White House had feuded. Other Bush loyalists have been or
soon will be tapped to head the Education, Energy, Agriculture and
Treasury departments, agencies where, in some cases, past secretaries
have embarrassed Bush with their independence.
Taming the Cabinet agencies is a daunting task. There are 3,000
political appointees and a U.S. civil service of 1.8 million workers,
many of whom are nearly impossible to fire.
And the Bush administration has discovered that workers in the agencies
-- political appointees and civil servants alike -- often stray from
White House orthodoxy; examples of administration critics include CIA
terrorism official Michael Scheuer, who wrote a book about flaws in the
fight against al Qaeda; former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who
criticized Bush about the case for war in Iraq; and former Treasury
secretary Paul H. O'Neill, who frequently contradicted the White House.
Still, the Bush administration has done better than its predecessors at
controlling the agencies. "They've created a multiplier effect in which
these 3,000 political appointees feel like three times that many," said
Paul C. Light, a New York University professor who advised the Bush
campaign in 2000 about bureaucracy reforms. Light points out that
political appointees now occupy positions in the top 10 or 15 layers of
management at the Cabinet agencies. And he says Bush's top political
adviser, Karl Rove, keeps the agencies in line by having a weekly
conference call with the chiefs of staff to the agency secretaries and
Light said the new moves to enforce loyalty at Cabinet agencies,
combined with the existing efforts, will drive many of the senior
executives in the civil service to retire in frustration, which will
give Bush "more coordination and control" over the agencies and "slow
down the regulatory process." Still, Light said, he has found "no
interest" in the more far-reaching overhaul of the federal workforce
that Bush proposed after consulting with him during the 2000 campaign
-- which would have, among other things, changed the rules for
employing federal workers, making the bureaucracy more like the private
Privately, officials in the White House say there is little hope of
truly taming the bureaucracy. Publicly, there is little talk of
attempting it. "I don't think any of the personnel changes at the
senior level will influence" the broader civil service reforms, said
Office of Management and Budget spokesman Chad Colton. "It's something
we'll continue at the edges to improve."
That is not good enough for advocates of fundamental changes in the
agencies. Fred Smith, who heads the free-market Competitive Enterprise
Institute, said he has acquired a "natural, realistic despair" about
hopes for major reforms of the regulatory process.
"Since Jimmy Carter, there has been an effort to get control of the
regulatory process and nobody has come close to succeeding," Smith
said. "It's worse than ever." Although "the body language" in the new
personnel moves indicates Bush is serious about restraining the
agencies, "the administration hasn't decided whether the regulatory
threat is serious enough to expend capital on."
To some extent, every president since Nixon has tried to assert more
White House control over the agencies. Some, particularly Nixon and
Carter, found that Cabinet secretaries and other political appointees
wound up representing their agencies' bureaucracies rather than the
White House's wishes. Before Bush, the most successful was the Reagan
administration, which controlled staffing of Cabinet agencies at the
Bruce Reed, who was the White House domestic policy chief under
President Bill Clinton, expressed some approval of Bush's personnel
style. "It's a good idea to promote from within and there's nothing
wrong with wanting a Cabinet whose agenda is the same as the
president's," he said.
But Reed cautioned against expecting major changes. "When people take
jobs at agencies, they tend to go native and start championing the
institution rather than the agenda of the person who put them there,"
he said. "Someone who is blindly loyal to the president at the White
House may try to develop dual citizenship."