There's a new syndrome in town....."battered Congress syndrome,"

[truthpusher]

from the LA Times.....

"Admitting the problem is a crucial first step. Hearings are a start, but heck, why not a select committee to investigate possible basis for impeachment? Imagine it: Congress, co-dependent no more!"

link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks5may05,0,7007026.column

ROSA BROOKS
----------------
Washington's abuser in chief
----------------
May 5, 2006

MOVE OVER, battered women! There's a new syndrome in town. It's called "battered Congress syndrome," and it was first identified by Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. It's strikingly like those of "battered women's syndrome," only the abusive partner is the Bush administration.

I know. You're thinking, "Come on. Aren't we talking about consenting Republicans here? Sure, there's an occasional spat between Congress and the White House, but it's just a minor domestic dispute. We shouldn't interfere." But that trivializes both the abuse and its broader societal ramifications.

Think back to 2000, when George W. Bush swore he was a "uniter, not a divider." He seemed so sincere. So he was a little inarticulate? Nothing the love of a good Congress couldn't fix. But honeymoons never last.

The abuse started small, with some minor infidelities to conservative principles, such as Bush's insistence on federal micromanagement of education. Then there were the empty promises, such as the endless emergency "I swear I'll never do this again" requests for supplemental funding. At times, Congress even got publicly slapped, like when administration officials simply walked out of a Senate hearing on mine safety.

(snip)

But weakness and appeasement only escalate the abuse. Consider the White House's practice of attaching "signing statements" to legislation when the president doesn't feel like obeying a law. For instance, in 2005, Congress passed legislation requiring that "scientific information … prepared by government researchers … shall be transmitted uncensored and without delay." The president said, "Sure, Honey!" and promised to sign the bill. But later, when no one was looking, he added a statement insisting that he could order researchers to withhold any information that might "impair … the deliberative processes of the executive."

(snip)

Admitting the problem is a crucial first step. Hearings are a start, but heck, why not a select committee to investigate possible basis for impeachment? Imagine it: Congress, co-dependent no more!

(snip)

link to entire piece: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks5may05,0,7007026.column

[cornermouse]

1. It started with Newt and his Contract on America.