congressional democrats

So I was reading this over at Power Line:

Whenever President Bush talked about immigration, his approval ratings went down. It was like clockwork: liberals never understood that the fatal decline in Bush's popularity during his second term had at least as much to do with his advocacy of "comprehensive immigration reform" as with war-weariness. Now President Obama has entered the lists, urging Congress to take up immigration. One can only wonder what Congressional Democrats make of this. Maybe they figure their own approval ratings can't possibly get any lower. But Obama's can, and they will if he keeps talking about immigration.

Yes Bush’s approval rating went down when he talked about immigration, but why? Well let’s think about it for a minute.

From the start of the Iraq War on, Bush’s approval rating was dropping. Most of that was coming from a loss of support amongst Democrats. In 2007, when Bush finally took up immigration, his approval rating was already in the low 30’s. His support amongst Democrats was down to single digits. Once Bush’s immigration plan came out his approval rating dipped into the 20’s, but his approval rating amongst Democrats stayed the same.

So while what John stated has some truth, the potential outcome he proposes is totally false. President Obama already has a dismal approval rating amongst the right, but if he pushes comprehensive immigration reform, he would see a boost from the left, increasing his approval rating.

One of the things the right has constantly done is tried to claim ownership of the phrase “immigration reform”. When they see polls reporting 60% wanting immigration reform, the right instantly believes that means they want THEIR immigration reform. But let’s look at a poll from last year:

This is what happens when you have a President coming into office that understands the Constitution and doesn't treat it like a piece of toilet paper:

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

Besides the problems of war and economy, Obama has the huge challenge of undoing all the damage Bush has done. It's good to see they are already focusing on that. With a Democratically controlled government, hopefully we can see new mechanisms put into place the protect us from having to go through anything like the last eight years ever again.

That's the day Dennis Kucinich is planning on introducing articles of impeachment against Bush. He is also going after Pelosi:

He also fired a volley at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California who has maintained that impeaching Mr. Bush is not on the table for Congressional Democrats. “If impeachment is off the table,” Mr. Kucinich said, “truth is off the table. If truth is off the table then this body is living a lie.”

AMEN! Impeachment, or the threat of, is one of the core principals of checks and balances and by Pelosi saying "it's off the table", she is, in effect, saying that checks and balances are off the table. This shows Pelosi is not up to the job of being Speaker of the House.

You think the White House would have learned something last November, but obviously that is wrong:

The president with the fewest vetoes in more than a century, George W. Bush is poised to make up for lost time as congressional Democrats move legislation the White House says is unacceptable.

In the past week alone the White House threatened to veto House bills dealing with presidential records and protection for whistle-blowers, and a defeated Senate bill that would have set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq.

The White House also warned that a war-spending bill the House will take up this coming week would face a veto because it contains Iraq withdrawal language.

Yeah - because we all know Bush has made such great decisions for our country in the past. That is why he is so loved by the American people and has such a high approval rating.</sarcasm>

I guess the best client a business could have is the United States
government:

The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all
of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and
repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon's own auditors had
identified more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or
unjustified.

The Army said in response to questions on Friday that questionable
business practices by the subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, had in some
cases driven up the company's costs. But in the haste and peril of war, it
had largely done as well as could be expected, the Army said, and aside from
a few penalties, the government was compelled to reimburse the company for
its costs.

Under the type of contract awarded to the company, "the contractor is not
required to perform perfectly to be entitled to reimbursement," said Rhonda
James, a spokeswoman for the southwestern division of the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, based in Dallas, where the contract is administered.

The contract has been the subject of intense scrutiny after disclosures
in 2003 that it had been awarded without competitive bidding. That produced
criticism from Congressional Democrats and others that the company had
benefited from its connection with Dick Cheney, who was Halliburton's chief
executive before becoming vice president.

Article continues

here.

In June of this year, a panel of congressional Democrats
held a hearing into the overspending and contracts involving Halliburton. During
this hearing, testimony was given by some prominent individuals who are close to
the situation.

Rory Mayberry, who was a supervisor for Halliburton’s
subsidiary Kellogg Root and Brown gave video testimony about rancid food being
served to the soldiers in Iraq. Sometimes this food would be a year past its
expiration date. His testimony also included how KR&B would charge the
government for 10,000 meals a day which were never served.

Those are some severe allegations about the Vice
President’s former company. What has been done about it? Well apparently the
government doesn’t care about the frivolous spending or the treatment of our
troops because they have done nothing yet.

The government has taken actions on other testimony
however. Bunnatine H. Greenhouse has worked for the Army Corp of Engineers for
over 20 years in the procurement office. During the past several years she was
the top Army official when it came to Army contracts. Now she has been demoted.

During the June hearing she gave testimony that KBR was
given an unusual amount of “sway” over the terms of its no-bid contract. She
further testified that Don Rumsfeld’s office intervened on the company’s behalf.
She summed it up as:

"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to
contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper abuse I
have witnessed during the course of my professional career,"